Engineering Law Motorcycles Pty Ltd
13 Pages3084 Words333 Views
Added on 2020-03-16
Engineering Law Motorcycles Pty Ltd
Added on 2020-03-16
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: ENGINEERING LAWEngineering LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1ENGINEERING LAWTable of ContentsIssue.................................................................................................................................................2Rules................................................................................................................................................2Application......................................................................................................................................6Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9Reference.......................................................................................................................................11
2ENGINEERING LAWIssue According to the case study the issue has been arises whether Clay can claim thedamages which has been occurred in his building workshop due to the negligence by theSebastian Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd or not?Rules Negligence is a part of tort law which has been exercise due to the failure of appropriatefor Ethical care under some specified circumstances. Due to the negligence a loss of propertycould be occur by the person who is liable for such act and it covers the physical laws or anyeconomic 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 hasestablishes it is necessary that our duty of care should exist between the parties where thedefendant must owned the duty of care towards the plaintiff. In the famous case the Donoghue vStevenson [1932] the duty of care has been found on the basis of specific circumstances wherethe defendant on the duty of care which make proximate relationship towards the plaintiff. In thecase of Balfour v. Attorney General [1991] the court has been found that proximity cause andpolicy consideration in the duty of care has been found in this case where the relation has beenestablished 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 theterms of duty of care towards the plaintiff. Therefore it is important that the standard of careshould be establishes where it defines the reasonable cause of the position of the defendant. It is
3ENGINEERING LAWnot necessary to show a loss to find the breach of duty of care when it has occurred towards theplaintiff. However due to the breach of care risk for injury has occur towards the plaintiff whereit is reasonably foreseeable and the reasonableness is occurs due to the responsibility of thedefendant. In the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] case the court has been found that the breach ofDuty has been caused by the defendant while he served a beer bottle towards the plaintiff whichhas a decomposed snail and makes the plaintiff a mental shock. In the case of ConsultantsGroup International v John Worman Ltd (1987) negligence has been found due to the beachof care where the plaintiff has found that architect was liable for the faulty design. In the case ofParis v Stepney Borough Council [1951] where defendant is the Council of the company wherethey breach their duty of care towards a disable man which cause a serious injury to the plaintiffin his both eyes. Here the defendant has owned a standard duty of care towards the plaintiff buthe failed to fulfill the duties. The breach of the duty of care also found in these recent cases alsowhich are Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012], D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod ofthe Diocese of Brisbane [2017], The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane vGreenway [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 ofDuty a loss has caused to the plaintiff. In the case of Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. NationalMutual Life Nominees (1991) has came to the court where it has been found that damage hasbeen occurred due to the negligence of duty of care which cause injury to the plaintiff. In thecase of Corke v.Kirby McLane Limited [1952] the ‘but for test’ has been applied where thecourt has mentioned that the damage may not have occur if that particular fault has not appliedby 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.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Case Study Analysislg...
|7
|1723
|270
Law of Tort - Understanding Negligence and Liabilitylg...
|5
|961
|313
Assignment on Commercial Lawslg...
|6
|1395
|79
Commercial Law Case Studylg...
|12
|2873
|232
Tort of Negligence and Product Liability in Australian Consumer Lawlg...
|11
|2690
|326
The Commonwealth High Court of Australia (1954)lg...
|8
|1171
|42