Law of Negligence - Assignment

Added on - 15 May 2020

  • 10


  • 2357


  • 15


  • 0


Showing pages 1 to 3 of 10 pages
Running Head: Law1Law
Law2Part AIssue:Whether it is possible for Marcos to file case against the Alice under law of Negligence?Law:Negligence can be understood as failure of person to take reasonable care for the purpose ofavoiding any action which can result in injury or loss to any other person. For establishing thecase under negligence, following elements must be present in the case:Plaintiff must provide evidence that defendant owns duty to take care towards theplaintiff.Defendant fails to take reasonable care of the plaintiff. In other words, action of thedefendant fails to match the standard of care which would be complying by anyreasonable person in the similar situations.Loss or injury is suffered by the plaintiff.Injury or loss caused because of the breach of duty by the defendant (ALRC, 2018).Common law determines the duty of care in number of limited relationships such asrelationship of innkeeper and guests, carrier and passenger, doctor and patient, occupier of landand visitor. For duty of care to be exists, there must be some relationship between the plaintiffand the defendant. It is necessary to establish that plaintiff and defendant share relationship forthe purpose of filing claim under negligence (Lawvision,n.d.; Liability Act, 2008). Duty of carecan be understood through case lawDonoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562. In this case, twoladies that was Mrs. Donoghue (plaintiff) and her friend went in café. Friend of Mrs. Donoghue
Law3purchased bottle of ginger-beer for Mrs. Donoghue. Bottle of ginger-beer was sealed and it wasnot possible to inspect the content of the bottle. Plaintiff drank a glass of the ginger-beer andwhen she poured second glass of the beer a decomposed snail fell from the bottle of the gingerbeer. Because of the snail in the bottle, Mrs. Donoghue suffered from gastroenteritis and nervousshock. In this, plaintiff file suit against the manufacturer of the ginger beer bottle undernegligence. In this case, relationship exists, as manufacturer of the beer sold bottle to theshopkeeper, that means contract exists between the parties and remedies under law wereavailable for breach of contractual terms. Shopkeeper sold the bottle of beer to the friend ofplaintiff that means contract exists between the parties. Later, friend made gift of the beer bottleto plaintiff. In this contract does not exist between the parties that mean no remedies areavailable under law of contract. House of Lords, London decide this case and main issue decidedby Court was whether plaintiff can took action against the manufacturer of beer?In this case, House of Lords decided that the manufacturer of the products owns the duty ofcare towards the ultimate consumers of the product while manufacturing such product, and this isbecause product manufactured by the manufacturer for the ultimate consumption of theconsumers. General principle was stated by the lord Atkin in this case, and in this principle heconsidered liability in context of tort of negligence. In this case, Judge made the law that theperson was obligated to love their neighbor and must not injure their neighbor. An individualwas under obligation to take reasonable care for avoiding any act or omissions which can bereasonable foresee that cause injury to the neighbor. In this context, Court also defines the termneighbor in restricted sense. Neighbor was the people who were closely or directly affected bythe act of person.
You’re reading a preview

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document