Liability of La Manna Engineering Pty Ltd and Vitro Pty Ltd

ISSUES IN QUESTION NO. 1& 2:
1. Liability of La Manna Engineering Pty Ltd.
2. Liability of Vitro Pty Ltd.
3. Defense available for La Manna.
DISCUSSION OF LAW IN QUESTION NO. 1& 2:
Tort means a conduct which is not lawful and is twisted or crooked. The Law of Torts
consists of various ‘torts’ or wrongful acts whereby the wrongdoer violates some
legal right vested in another person. Tort is a breach of duty recognized under the
common as well as statutory law of torts.
Amongst the various torts, negligence is one of those. Negligence is the breach of
duty caused by the omission to do an act which a reasonable man, guided by
reasonable considerations, would have done or to do something which a prudent
man would not have done. Summarily, Negligence has three meaning: i. A state of
mind opposed to intention; ii. Careless conduct; iii. The breach of duty to take care
is imposed legally.
However, the plaintiff has to prove each of the following to establish the liability on
the part of the defendant: 1
 That the defendant owed a duty of care to the defendant.
 That the defendant failed to take the due care negligently.
 That such failure has caused damage, which was foreseeable, to the
plaintiff.
Duty of care:
Previously, duty of care would arise only in certain limited categories. Later, it was
recognized that duty of care could arise in any situation. In, Donoghue v Stevenson
(1932) AC 562 the House of Lords decided it to be approached in general situation
rather in restrictive categories. 2
“A duty of care makes a person responsible for taking reasonable care to avoid
harm being caused to another. The duty of care exists as a result of the relationship
between parties. Key examples of a duty to care are found in relationships such as
teacher and student, employer and employee, doctor and patient, as well as lawyer
and client. If a person owes a duty of care to another, a court will determine exactly
what duties are owed. This is considered to be “the standard of care”. Under
the
Civil Liability Act 2002, a professional is held to the standard of their fellow
professionals. For example, a doctor or accountant would be held to the standard of
1 (Gibson & Fraser, 2007), Topic 6 (Referencing Document);
2 Ibid;

doctors or accountants and what is widely accepted as competent professional
practice.”3
Breach of duty:
Breach of duty means non-observance of due care which is reasonably required in a
particular situation. The standard is objective and varies from situation to situation.
“In order to establish whether a duty of care has been breached the court will look
first of all at the standard of care that is expected in the circumstances.
The standard of care is determined by looking at what a reasonable person would
have done (or not done) in the same circumstances. Where a defendant has acted
in an unreasonable way or their actions fell well below the standard expected they
will be found to have breached their duty of care.”4
OUTLINE OF LAW QUESTION NO. 1& 2:
INJURY: La Manna Engineering Pty Ltd is a manufacturer and retailer of Industrial
Machines, particularly for timber industry. Vitro Pty Ltd is a tree feeling company.
The later bought a GAULTIERI machine from the former company. An employee
named Sal used the same to cut a tree with the same machine after 6 months of it
had been bought. Unfortunately, due to the machine’s dysfunction Sal got injured
and a branch of the tree fell on the home owner’s car causing damage.
The Vitro Company suffered the loss. It had to pay Sal’s medical bills, hire his
replacement also pay Sal his wages besides replacing the car costing $23,000.00.
DUTY and BREACH: After investigation, the fault on the part of the La Manna
Company has been revealed. The machine was defected. It was their duty to
manufacture and sell a properly working machine.
Also, Vitro failed to service the machine regularly following La Manna’s instructions.
Although, they serviced it in similar ways to the other machines they had already.
Moreover, Vitro’s employee Sal had a duty to be harnessed and tied the tree branch
to the trunk. If he would have followed the usual practice, he the damage could
have been avoided.
CAUSATION: As it is known that, causation means the direct connection between
the defendants conduct and the damage suffered. In this case, the fault is on the
part of La Manna and also on the part of Vitro. The damage has been done to Vitro
which directly bought the machine from the former one. The causation, hence, is
clearly evident.
KEY CASES (IDENTIFICATION AND REFERRENCE) QUESTION NO. 1:
1. DONOGHUE v STEVENSON (1932) AC 562: In this case, Lord Atkin
pointed out two points to be seen in case of duty of care: a. the concept of
proximity and b. the reasonable foreseeability of injury test. The La Manna
3 Etheringtons Solicitors. Accessed May 5, 2019.
http://www.etheringtons.com.au/blog/what-is-the-tort-of-negligence/
4 Legal Service Commission of South Australia. Accessed 5th May, 2019.
https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php