Duty of Care and Standard of Care in Negligence Law

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
Commercial Law

1
ISSUE 1
Did a duty of care is owed by Wollongong Council towards Peter?
RULE 1
In order to hold a party liable under a suit for negligence, it is important that the party
must owe a duty of care. This duty imposes an obligation on parties to ensure that they
maintain a standard while taking or not taking certain actions. In Donoghue v Stevenson
(1932) AC 532 case, the court provided the ‘neighbour test’ which can assist parties in
determining whether a duty is present or not. This test provides that the parties must
have a proximity relationship. The second element is that the injuries suffered by the
parties must be foreseeable. In this case, a customer drink remains of a dead snail which
was present in a beer bottle. The court provided that a proximity relationship was
present between the customer and the café owner and the risks were foreseeable; thus,
a duty of care is present (Stephenson, 2012).
APPLICATION 1
Wollongong Council is responsible for managing future projects in the area based on
which it owes a duty towards investors who rely on its certificate to decide whether
they should invest in the area or not. A proximity relationship exists between Peter and
the council since the decision of the council affects the interest of Peter. The loss faced
by Peter is foreseeable as well because the future projects in the area directly affect his
investment by reducing its value.

2
CONCLUSION 1
Conclusively, a duty is owed by Wollongong Council to Peter.

3
ISSUE 2
Did Wollongong Council fail to maintain a standard of care?
RULE 2
The party who owes a duty of care has to ensure that a standard is maintained to avoid
violation of such duty. The party has to ensure that he/she acts in a reasonable manner
to avoid breach of the duty. The general standard of care requires parties to take
reasonable care in all circumstances. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] UKHL 3
case, it was held that the parties who failed to act in a reasonable manner which is
expected in the particular scenario could be held liable for not maintaining a standard of
care (Martin, 2014).
APPLICATION 2
Wollongong Council is responsible for handling future projects in the area and includes
information regarding the same in the certificate. A reasonable person would have
included all the relevant information regarding future projects in the certificate since it
can cause damages to parties who are investing in the area. Therefore, the council
breached a duty of care by failing in to maintain a standard of care.
CONCLUSION 2
Conclusively, the standard of care is not maintained by Wollongong Council based on
which the duty is breached.