Negligence and Damages Claim

This assignment examines a case study involving a fire at Surtees workshop due to an overheating diagnostic machine. It analyzes the concept of negligence, focusing on duty of care, breach, causation, and remoteness of damages. The case explores how Clay, the plaintiff whose neighboring workshop suffered losses, can claim damages based on Surtees' breach of duty of care under civil liability legislation.

Running head: ENGINEERING LAW
Engineering Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ENGINEERING LAW
Table of Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Rules................................................................................................................................................2
Application......................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
Reference.......................................................................................................................................11

2ENGINEERING LAW
Issue
According to the case study the issue has been arises whether Clay can claim the
damages which has been occurred in his building workshop due to the negligence by the
Sebastian Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd or not?
Rules
Negligence is a part of tort law which has been exercise due to the failure of appropriate
for Ethical care under some specified circumstances. Due to the negligence a loss of property
could be occur by the person who is liable for such act and it covers the physical laws or any
economic laws also. It has mainly four parts which are the duty of care, breach of the duty,
causation and remoteness.
Duty of care is one of the important parts of negligence. When a negligence has
establishes it is necessary that our duty of care should exist between the parties where the
defendant must owned the duty of care towards the plaintiff. In the famous case the Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932] the duty of care has been found on the basis of specific circumstances where
the defendant on the duty of care which make proximate relationship towards the plaintiff. In the
case of Balfour v. Attorney General [1991] the court has been found that proximity cause and
policy consideration in the duty of care has been found in this case where the relation has been
established between the plaintiff and defendant where the duty of care has been owned.
The breach of duty of care is occurring when the defendant has failed to exercise the
terms of duty of care towards the plaintiff. Therefore it is important that the standard of care
should be establishes where it defines the reasonable cause of the position of the defendant. It is

3ENGINEERING LAW
not necessary to show a loss to find the breach of duty of care when it has occurred towards the
plaintiff. However due to the breach of care risk for injury has occur towards the plaintiff where
it is reasonably foreseeable and the reasonableness is occurs due to the responsibility of the
defendant. In the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] case the court has been found that the breach of
Duty has been caused by the defendant while he served a beer bottle towards the plaintiff which
has a decomposed snail and makes the plaintiff a mental shock. In the case of Consultants
Group International v John Worman Ltd (1987) negligence has been found due to the beach
of care where the plaintiff has found that architect was liable for the faulty design. In the case of
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] where defendant is the Council of the company where
they breach their duty of care towards a disable man which cause a serious injury to the plaintiff
in his both eyes. Here the defendant has owned a standard duty of care towards the plaintiff but
he failed to fulfill the duties. The breach of the duty of care also found in these recent cases also
which are Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012], D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of
the Diocese of Brisbane [2017], The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v
Greenway [2017] and Stokes v House With No Steps [2016].
The third element is causation where it is important to show that due to the breach of
Duty a loss has caused to the plaintiff. In the case of Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. National
Mutual Life Nominees (1991) has came to the court where it has been found that damage has
been occurred due to the negligence of duty of care which cause injury to the plaintiff. In the
case of Corke v.Kirby McLane Limited [1952] the ‘but for test’ has been applied where the
court has mentioned that the damage may not have occur if that particular fault has not applied
by the defendant and due to the fault that damage has been occur. In the case of Yates v Jones
(1990) the causation has been found when a young woman was injured by a drunk driver.

4ENGINEERING LAW
Therefore the loss of the injury has occurred only for the drunk driver due to his heroin addiction
and the ‘but for test’ has applied in this case. Another case March v E & MH Stramare Pty
Ltd (1990) the ‘but for test’ has been applied and interpreted with the common sense. In this
case the plaintiff has met with serious injury due to the truck driver who is the defendant in this
case.
The fourth element is the remoteness which defines the remoteness of the damages. In
the remoteness the court has tried to find out where the defendant is liable for all the losses
which have been caused due to the breach of duty of care. In the case of Tankship Limited v.
Morts Dock Limited [1967] the court has been found the defendant is liable for all the losses of
kind reasonably foreseeable which has failed to meet the standard of care towards the plaintiff.
The defenses are in negligence only possible in two ways. Those are contributory
negligence where both the plaintiff and defendant are liable for the damages. In the case of
Connors v The WAGR Commission (1992) it has been found that young boy has playing on
the railway track and injured by a train therefore both the plaintiff and defendant responsible for
such injuries. In Ingram v Britten [1994] the plaintiff has been injured buy a tractor which has
been owned by the defendant and due to the recklessly driving of the tractor and he hit a tree and
got injury. Therefore the court has mentioned about the contributory negligence in this case for
both the defendant and plaintiff got the responsibility for the injury. In another case Bains
Harding Construction & Roofing (Aust) Pty Ltd v McCredie Richmond & Partners Pty
Ltd (1988) the plaintiff has found in the contributory negligence where the defendant also take
part in such responsibility of the negligence.

5ENGINEERING LAW
The another defense in negligence is voluntary assumption of risk which defines where
plaintiff has fully and freely has related and related with the risk which caused by the defendants
contact where the defendant can be relieved of legal liability for the conduct. Therefore the
plaintiff is also part of the damages in the voluntary assumption of risk. However it is very rarely
found in the negligent cases. In the case of Morris v Murray [1990] the Court has found that the
plaintiff was a suffered with the injuries but he was not entitled to any compensation for such
risk which has been cause by the defendant as he was known to the risks.
In another case Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948) it was found in an accident and
suffered injuries where plaintiff has knowledge about the driver who is drunk. Therefore again
the court has not entitled for any compensation for the plaintiff for such injuries.
Therefore according to the law of tort when are duty of care has failed to exercise
according to the terms therefore the beach has occurred by the defendant which cause damages
like injuries or any monetary loss. The Civil liability act has been provided such support to the
plaintiff who is suffering for the injury or the damages of his property or bodily injury. It
provides the compensation and helps to take legal precaution against the damages by the
defendant which has caused due to the breach of duty of care. In the case of Perre v Apand Pty
Ltd [1999) the court has provided the legal protection and precaution against the negligence of
duty of care to the plaintiff which has been occurs due to the dissatisfaction of the terms of
standard of care by the defendant. It is necessary that when a person is involving in providing a
services to the other person therefore that person owned the duty of care towards the others
person with proper care and diligence. When such terms has fails to satisfied then a breach of
duty of care has occur which cause the damages which maybe bodily injury or any monetary
damages.

6ENGINEERING LAW
In this case it has been found that due to the failure of the duty of care of the employees
of Sebastian Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd has caused to the neighbor mechanical
engineering workshop which has been owned by Clay Hawthorne has suffered a severe damage
in his office it may not cause the bodily injury but the monetary damages.
Application
Negligence is the area of tort law which only identified when a breach of duty of care has
occurred by the defendant. According to the law of tort in the negligence it is important to
establish the terms where a defendant must owned the duty of care to the plaintiff. It has also
stated that when application of such laws and terms has been failed for the appropriate and
ethical rules of specific circumstances then it will define the term negligence in the law of tort.
Therefore when the defendant fail to act according to the appropriate unethical rules of specific
circumstances while he owned the duty of care a breach has occurred by the defendant which
made for negligence towards the plaintiff. Due to the breach of duty of care the plaintiff could be
cause potential harm which may bodily injury or damages or loss which may include the
economic loss also. According to the negligence when the plaintiff is suffered and affected by
any of the damages or loss or injuries due to the breach of duty of care by the defendant therefore
the defendant is bound to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. It is the right of the plaintiff that
he can claim the damages for the loss or injuries which has been caused due to the negligence by
the defendant.
According to the case study the fact of the case is Sebastian Surtees Performance
Motorcycles Pty Ltd has been operated their business from last 4 years where they work on the
maintenance and performance up gradation of the motorcycles in the workshop. This company is

7ENGINEERING LAW
very safety conscious and never wishes to expose his employees or customers to unnecessary
risk. Recently the company has installed sophisticated Diagnostic machine which help to
maintenance in the motorcycle engines. However one day one of the technician has left the
Diagnostic machine without switching off which cause overheat off the machine and causes the
fire in the workshop. Therefore due to the negligence of the technician of that company the
workshop has extensive damage where machinery customer motorcycle and components are all
damaged and unfortunately the workshop was being too dangerous to be repaired and need to be
demolished.
Due to the Fire spread to the neighboring area another mechanical engineering workshop
which was owned by Clay Hawthorne is also damaged on the front office engine building
workshop and a company vehicle which was parked inside the premises. This damage has caused
him $475000. Clay recently involved with stand alone event in New Zealand where he will
earned $15000 which will not include in his airfare and other expenses which has been paid for
by the Motor Sports team. Therefore as he faced with huge monetary damages due to the fire of
neighbor Surtees workshop. Now he wants to claim the damage amount from them.
According to the case facts it has found that the damage has been caused due to the
negligence by the employee of the Surtees workshop. When someone suffers loss which caused
by the other’s negligence therefore he has right to sue for damages to compensate for their loss.
It may include physical harm, damage to property, psychiatric illness or economic loss. In this
case the plaintiff has suffered with huge amount of economic loss.
Negligence has cause by the duty of care which of the duty causation and remoteness.
The duty of case is defined when the defendant has owned the duty to the plaintiff and must

8ENGINEERING LAW
exercise the reasonable care towards him. It should establish a proper relation between the
plaintiff and defendant. It is the legal liability of the defendant where he must be responsible
towards the plaintiff while exercising the duty of care. According to the case facts the Sebastian
Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd must owned the duty of care towards their neighbor
mechanical engineering workshop. It is the duty of the company that they must took care of all
equipment in their workshop which are using for their own benefits and must not cause any
damage to others by that equipment.
According to the second essential terms of negligence the breach of duty of care has
defined when the defendant owned the duty towards the plaintiff but failed to exercise such
duties. Then it will cause the breach of the duty of the care. As per the case study the employee
of Surtees workshop has failed to exercise their duties while the employee has forgot to switch
off one of the mechanical Diagnostic machine which cause fire and make damages to the
neighbor company also. However the damage has been caused by the employee of the workshop
but here the company is directly liable for such acts which cause damage to the plaintiff. When
the Fire and Emergency Services has investigate the situation they found that due to the
overheating of the Diagnostic machine it has caused the fire which not only damage the
companies workshop but also the fire has spread towards the neighboring mechanical
engineering workshop. It is clear that the damage has been cause due to the breach of the duty of
care by the company.
According to the third element the causation of damage has occurred due to the breach
of the duty which makes the economic loss to the plaintiff. It is important to prove the actual
cause of the breach of duty of care. According to the ‘but for test’ in this case fact it has already
found that if the employee of Surtees workshop not failed to switch off the Diagnostic machine

9ENGINEERING LAW
then the fire will not caused in that workshop. Therefore it has been proved that the Fire has only
occurred for the overheating of the Diagnostic machine due to the failure of the duty of care for
left the machine without switching off it. If the fire has not spread to the neighboring mechanical
engineering workshop then Clay will never cause any damages in his workshop. Therefore the
area of causation has been found.
The fourth element which is remoteness of the damages which define that the defendant
is liable for all the damages which have been caused due to the breach of duty of care. As per the
above discussion of the duty of care, breach of Duty and causation of the damage has already
proved that the Surtees workshop is liable for such damages. They failed to fulfill the terms of
duty of care which cause the Fire and make a huge economic loss to the plaintiff. Defendant is
liable for all the losses of the reasonably foreseeable which has failed to meet the standard of
care towards the plaintiff.
The Civil liability act has provided search legislations where the plaintiff can claim for
the damages or loss which he has suffered by the defendant. As per the case study Clay has
suffered the damages of $475000 which has been caused due to the breach of duty of care by the
Surtees workshop.
Conclusion
As per the case fact the damages of the plaintiff have been found due to the failure of
duty of care by the Surtees workshop and breach the terms. Therefore due to the negligence the
plaintiff has suffered with the damages of $475000. Now he has right to claim the damage
amounts according to the Civil liability act and the defendant is bound to pay the damage

10ENGINEERING LAW
amounts as they are liable for the damages of his neighboring mechanical engineering workshop
due to the breach of duty of care.

11ENGINEERING LAW
Reference
Bains Harding Construction & Roofing (Aust) Pty Ltd v McCredie Richmond & Partners Pty
Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 437
Balfour v. Attorney General [1991] 519
Connors v The WAGR Commission (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-187
Consultants Group International v John Worman Ltd (1987) 9 Con LR 46
Corke v.Kirby McLane Limited [1952] 2 All ER 402
D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017]
Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. National Mutual Life Nominees (1991) 5 NZCLC 67,418
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Ingram v Britten [1994] ATR 81
Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948) 77 CLR 39
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 506
Morris v Murray [1990] 3 All ER 801
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)
Stokes v House With No Steps [2016]

12ENGINEERING LAW
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182
Tankship Limited v. Morts Dock Limited [1967] 1 AC 617
The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017]
Yates v Jones (1990) ATR 81