Introduction to Legal Studies

This document provides an introduction to legal studies, focusing on the Australian legal system, civil and criminal law, and the concept of negligence. It covers the need for legal studies, the division of powers in Australia, and the sources of Australian law. The document also includes two case studies on the tort of negligence, discussing the duty of care, breach of duty, and foreseeability of damage. Additionally, it explores the Maritime Safety Act and advises on a specific case related to maritime safety.

INTRODUCTION TO
LEGAL STUDIES

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
PROBLEM 1...............................................................................................................................3
PROBLEM 2...............................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The need of legal studies in any country is to enhance the knowledge of various existing
laws so that the person can become aware of its Rights & Duties. Regarding students who wants
to make their career in law it is of utmost importance to provide them with the proper resources
of legal studies for nurturing their talent. Also the proper channel of legal studies will burst the
various myths about the law which is there in existence within general public.
There is the Parliamentary Democracy in Australia which is governed by its constitution
enacted in the year 1901. The Australian constitution has divided the powers between the central
government of Australia and the government of different states. As Australia is a common law
country there is a significant impact of English laws upon the Australian legal system and its
legal studies. Mainly the two major sources of Australian law are “Legislations(Passed by the
Parliament)”, and the “Various Judgements which acts as Binding Precedents”.
In Australia there are mainly two branches of laws that are Civil Law and Criminal
Law. Criminal law deals with cases where any offence has to be tried whereas Civil law deals
majorly with the Contracts, Torts and other branches of civil law.
In the given problems the researcher will try to cover the relevant laws and the various
judgements.
MAIN BODY
PROBLEM 1
Facts:
Mrs Thomas has purchased a tweed suits which also consists of jackets & trousers from
“Fine Clothing & Apparel Manufacturer's Outlet”. The store is owned & operated by the
manufacturer only. After wearing of the suit for 2 to 3 times Mrs Thomas has developed some
rashes on her body. As the rashes were infecting the many parts of body she went to the hospital
where she got to know that life threatening septicaemia has been developed on her skin and the
report of the doctor reveals that there is a formaldehyde residue. Mrs Thomas has filed a suit
against the manufacturer of the suit to claim the compensation for his negligent act.

Law Applicable:
“The Tort of Negligence”- While proving the tort of negligence to get damages it must be
proved that “the person was owing a duty of care towards claimant”, “the existing duty has
been breached” and “the injury has been caused due to that breach”. Also “foreseeability of
the damage” must also be taken into consideration1.
Issues Raised:
1. Whether the manufacturer(Fine Clothing & Apparel Manufacturer) was negligent in
manufacturing the suit due to which Mrs Thomas suffered the rashes?
2. Whether Mrs Thomas is entitled to get the damages from the manufacturer of clothes?
Reasoning:
In Australia the Tort law has been majorly based upon the system of Common Law. It
means that it is considered as the “Judge Made Law”. Various states in Australia has tried to
legislate it through Civil Liabilities Act 2002 but most of it is still dependent upon the various
case laws that are decided earlier. The landmark judgement on the law of negligence has been
given by the English court in the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson(1932) which is considered as
the development of the law of negligence in the modern society. This case is also known as the
“Snail in the Bottle Case” in which Mrs Donoghue has purchased a bottle of beer from a cafe
and after consuming it she found that in the bottle there was the decomposed snail due to which
she fell ill. She filed for the compensation from the manufacturer of the beer who was Mr
Stevenson. When the matter came before The House of Lords it stated that the manufacturer of
beer was having the duty of care towards its customers and there was the breach of its duty due
to which the health of the customer got affected2. It was also held by the House of Lords that it
was foreseeable that if such an negligent act would be done while manufacturing of the beer, it
can affect the health of the people consuming that product. Hence in this case the damages were
provided to Mrs Donoghue by the manufacturer.
To make liable somebody for the negligence it is necessary that the harm caused was
reasonably foreseeable. This has been evolved through a judgement “Bolton vs Stone” by the
House of Lords in England. In this case what happened was that a cricket ball hit the plaintiff
who was standing outside the cricket stadium. The judgement was given after considering the
1 Joanne Conaghan and Wade Mansell, The Wrongs Of Tort (Pluto Press, 2016).
2 Iseghohime Ehighalua, "Where Did The Donoghue V. Stevenson Decision Come From? A Jurisprudential
Inquiry" [2013] SSRN Electronic Journal.

foreseeability of the damage caused and it was held that it was highly improbable to predict that
ball will go out from the stadium through a shot while playing the match, hence the
compensation cannot be provided.
Under Australian law of negligence one case has been decided by the Privy Council
which is having the similar facts as given in the problem. In the case of Grant vs Australian
Knitting Mills(1936) in which the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson was followed. In this
judgement focus was that if the manufacturer is aware of the thing that any negligence on his
part can cause damage to the consumer, it becomes necessary for the manufacturer to ensure the
reasonable care while manufacturing any product. In this case the claimant has purchased
woollen underwear from John Martin & Co..3 After wearing these the claimant has caused
certain irritation on the skin which resulted into dermatitis. This has happened because of the
presence of Sulphur while manufacturing the underwear. The Privy Council here held that there
was a breach of duty on the part of the defendant and also it was foreseeable that his negligence
can cause harm to the customer. Hence the manufacturer was held liable by the Privy Council to
give compensation to the claimant4.
Judgement:
After considering the above cases and applying these precedents to the given problem
this court believes that the duty of care was present on the part of the manufacturer(Fine Clothing
& Apparel Manufacturer) who is the defendant in this particular case. There is also the breach of
that duty by the defendant because of which the claimant(Mrs Thomas) has developed rashes &
septicaemia due to the presence of formaldehyde residue which means that there was negligence
when the suit was manufactured. It was also foreseeable that this can cause harm to the the
consumer. So by applying the above mentioned cases this court concludes that claimant is
entitled to get the compensation from the defendant for the harm caused.
PROBLEM 2
Facts:
Tony was a cartoonist and a keen fishermen who has created five characters and put
them around the mouth of Eel river over the top of the each marker because he has lost a dare
game to his friends who told him to create new cartoon characters and place them on five
3 Abraham Harari, The Place Of Negligence In The Law Of Torts (Law Book Co. of Australasia, 2013).
4 Johnson, "Torts: Negligence: Proximate Cause" (2017) 28(4).

locations around main beach. While doing so Tony was apprehended by the water police and was
charged under the law.
Law Applicable:
Maritime Safety Act, 2019 will be applicable in this case which has been passed to
“protect public safety on the waterways” & “to provide a common system of maritime
signs,symbols,beacons,buoys and marks”5.
Advise to Tony:
Here the act done by the Tony is the violation of the Maritime Safety Act, 2019. This act
was passed with certain objectives and one of the objective is that to ensure that all the signs &
symbols of maritime should follow a common system. Even though while placing the cartoon
characters Tony has taken the the full care so that the red & green marks should not obscure. But
there is a possibility that people can get confused by seeing those cartoon characters and also this
action of Tony violates the objectives of the the applicable act for which the particular law has
been legislated. The other objective of the act was to ensure the safety of the people on
waterways. By this act of Tony people can get confused seeing those cartoon characters which
can be a reason which can hamper the safety of the people. It will be not a valid defence which
would be accepted in the court of law that he was just completing a dare which he lost to his
friends. It is advised to Tony to accept his guilt before the court in the trial so that the amount of
punishment imposed upon him can be reduced by the presiding officer.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded after doing the above two case studies that in the matter related to the
negligence certain things has to be determined to make the defendant liable for paying the
compensation to the claimant. The existence of a duty and the breach of that existing duty is the
most important things which should be considered while making a person liable for the
negligence. Further it can also be concluded that while interpreting any legislation or act,it
should be taken into consideration that interpretation must be done in such a way so that it meets
the aims and objectives of the act.
5 Andrew Forbes, "Book Review: Maritime Security: International Law And Policy Perspectives From
Australia And New Zealand" (2015) 22(2) International Journal of Maritime History.

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Conaghan, Joanne and Wade Mansell, The Wrongs Of Tort (Pluto Press, 2016)
Ehighalua, Iseghohime, "Where Did The Donoghue V. Stevenson Decision Come From? A
Jurisprudential Inquiry" [2013] SSRN Electronic Journal
Forbes, Andrew, "Book Review: Maritime Security: International Law And Policy Perspectives
From Australia And New Zealand" (2015) 22(2) International Journal of Maritime
History
Harari, Abraham, The Place Of Negligence In The Law Of Torts (Law Book Co. of Australasia,
2013)
Johnson, "Torts: Negligence: Proximate Cause" (2017) 28(4)