Driver Determining For His Duty

Running head: TORT LAW
Tort Law of Negligence
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

TORT LAW
1
Issue
To determine Bart’s liability to pay Milhouse Bakery the following amounts for the losses
sustained by the latter: a) $10,000 for destroying the eggs, b) $35,000 for the loss in sale, and
c) $5,000 as the claimant lost the documentary fee.
Rule
A person or a driver shall have a certain duty of care towards another driver driving on the
same road or adjacent road, thereby maintaining safety standards in terms of driving so that a
fellow driver or pedestrian does not feel unsafe (Evans-Jones & Scott, 2018). The case of
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 is a remarkable example of determining the person
to owe a duty of care for. The Neighbour Principle was discussed in this case, where it was
held that one must not injure his ‘neighbour’ that is, someone who is in such a close
proximity with another that the person’s actions is likely to affect the other person (Evans-
Jones & Scott, 2018). Therefore, a person must take reasonable care of another people who
are in his close proximity, by keeping a proper lookout as held in Steed v McDougall [2019]
ACTSC 36. The person whose act may affect his neighbours must reasonably foresee any
risk that might occur from his actions. In this context, a driver shall be responsible for the
safety of his fellow road users (Goldberg, Sebok & Zipursky, 2016). In the case of Nettleship
v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, the court had laid down the standard of care that could be
expected from an experienced driver. The driver shall be held guilty of negligence, if he
violates his duty of care towards his ‘neighbours’. The element of negligence, therefore,
consists of: a) a duty of care, b) breach of such duty, c) damage occurring from such breach,
d) the risk was unforeseeable (Evans-Jones & Scott, 2018).
The element of foreseeability of risk is vital to constitute negligence and incur compensation
from the tortfeasor. A person guilty of breaching duty of care could be held accountable for