Duty of Care and Essendon Football Club

The assignment examines a case study concerning Essendon Football Club's alleged breach of duty of care towards its players. It delves into the legal concept of negligence, analyzing how the football club's supplement program potentially caused harm to Nathan Howlett-Murray and his daughter. The analysis draws upon relevant legal precedents like *Donoghue v Stevenson* and *Perre v Apand Pty Ltd*, outlining the duty of care owed by the club to its players. The assignment concludes by assessing the potential for compensation and the implications of this case on sports organizations' responsibilities.

Running head: TORT LAW
Tort Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TORT LAW
Table of Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Rules................................................................................................................................................2
Application......................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
Reference.......................................................................................................................................10

2TORT LAW
Issue
According to the case study the issue is whether Essendon Football Club is liable for the health
issues suffered by Nathan Howlett-Murray and his 3 year old daughter for their health issues due
to the program of administering certain supplements to its professional ethics which is also
known as the supplement program.
Rules
According to the case study the Essendon Football Club held liable for the health issues of the
participants in the Australian football league sessions1. The football club has provided some
supplement program which causes health and safety issues of the footballers and Nathan
Howlett-Murray who was suffering for the health issues along with his 3 years old daughter.
Therefore it is a case of negligence where the football club has breach their duty of care and
breached the rules of duty of care2. It is a case of breach of duty of care due to the negligence
who owns the duty towards the other person. In the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson3 where it
has been found that the person who is providing the service to the consumer has breach the duty
of care while he serving the beer bottle, the plaintiff had found there is a decomposed Snail in the
bottle which make her sick and therefore she claims compensation from the service provider for
the breach of Duty. it is a breach of duty of the restaurant attendant who is serving the drinks4.
The negligence has been found on the breach of the duty of care of when a person make
the damages to the another person. The suffered person either got injuries or any other property
1 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity
2 Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.
3 Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580.
4 Stewart, P. and Stuhmcke, A., 2014. High Court Negligence Cases 2000–10.

3TORT LAW
damage which makes the negligence by the service provider. The negligence only occurs when
the duty of care is not perform and when the duty of care breached and along with negligence
also applied to the situation. In the case of Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] the duty of
care has been found by the defendant who failed to provide proper service to the plaintiff where
he breach the duty and cause damages to the plaintiff 5.
In the case of D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017]
where the court has found that plaintiff has stated that breach has occur due to the negligence of
the duty of care by the employees while he was driving. However it is the beach of duty and in
another case The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] it
was found that the defendant was fined with penalties for breach the duty of care and occur
negligence towards the plaintiff who got injuries by the defendant6.
In another case Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] the court has been found the
significance of the breach of duty of care by the defendant who cause several damages to the
plaintiff due to the negligence. The plaintiff also stated in the court that she was injured at her
workplace while the defendant failed to comply the duty of care towards a disable person and it
cause injury and damage with the plaintiff7.
When a breach has caused the Civil Liability Act provides the provisions in the tort law
where the injured person can take the precaution against the damage if any negligence occur by
the defendant. In another case Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)8 the court describe the duty of
care of the employment where defendant has failed to satisfy the terms of duty of care. Therefore
5 Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review, 24(1), pp.34-62.
6 Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review, 24(1), pp.34-62.
7 Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.
8 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

4TORT LAW
the negligence occurs and cause damage to the plaintiff. According to the tort law of negligence
the plaintiff who suffered the damage can claim the compensation for the negligence of duty of
care towards the service provider9. Here according to the case study the football club arranged
for the supplement program and participation on that program, footballers affected where they
suffered loss of sponsorship, loss of income, emotional distress and loss of reputation which are
the highly cause damages for the career of the players. Here Nathan Howlett-Murray has claimed
that due to this supplement program he and his 3 years old daughter also suffered several health
issues. Therefore he can claim the damage according to the civil liability act for breach of the
duty of the care by the Essendon Football Club 10.
Application
When the negligence occurs due to the breach of duty of care by the defendant as per the
law of tort it should prove the elements of the negligence for the duty of care. Negligence is
defined as exercise of acts where it failed according to the appropriate and ethical rules of the
specified circumstances. The law of torts establishes the terms of negligence where it must cause
any harm for failing the carelessness of that particular circumstances11. Therefore it is the duty of
the people that they must not exercise negligence which make a potential harm to another person
or any property. Due to the negligence when the plaintiff suffers any loss he or she may able to
sue the defendant for the damages and claim the compensation for the harm due to the negligent.
In damage any loss can occur which includes physical injury, any harm to the property or any
psychiatric illness or any economic loss12.
9 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity
10 Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review, 24(1), pp.34-62.
11 Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580.
12 Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.

5TORT LAW
The essential terms or elements of the negligence our duty of care breach of Duty causing
fat proximate cause and damages. Those are:
 Duty or duty of care is one of the important terms in negligence. When the defendant
owned the duty of care towards the plaintiff then according to the law of tort there should
be a recognized relationship will be established between the defendant and plaintiff and
the defendant is obliged to the duty of care13. Therefore the duty of care can be
determined by anybody who is providing any act of services to another person and the
duty always establishes under a particular set of circumstances towards the plaintiff by
the defendant. When a negligent occurs, the courts always try to find such duty which has
establishes the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff14.
For example if the dependent loading a bags of vegetables into a truck and suddenly he strike
with one child with one of the back then the defendant instantly owned the duty to the child
because when the defendant loading the bags with vegetables he is performing the duty of care to
handling the bags of vegetables with proper care at the presence of the child. Therefore the
existence of the reasonable duty of care should be established and the court also likes to find the
relation between the child and the defendant who owned a duty to the child. However it is also
mention that as it was a private property of the defendant and he has no knowledge about the
presence of the child who was trespassing his property if any accident occur on that time the
court will find less that whether the defendant owned or duty or not15.
 The breach of duty of care only occurs when the defendant is liable for breach the duty
which he has owns to the plaintiff. When the defendant has failed to satisfy the term of
13 Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580.
14 Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.
15 Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.

6TORT LAW
duty of care then the breach occur. In the breach of duty of care most of the time the
defendant is knowingly do the act with the substantial clauses or risk or loss to the
plaintiff and breach the duty. Therefore when they fails to know about the substantial risk
of loss towards the plaintiff for the active breach of duty of care then according to the tort
it will make the negligence.
In the case of McHale v Watson [1966] the court has found that the defendant owned a
standard of duty of care towards the children where a 9 years old girl was hurt forcefully with a
short metal rod by a 12 year old girl which makes the girl blinded in one eye. Therefore in this
case the court has found that the 12 year old child has make the harm to the 9 year old child but
she has no knowledge about the cause of accident because she was not cross the stage of
development where she was on the duty of care16.
 Another term in negligence case is causes in fact where the plaintiff should prove the
cause of the injury which has done by the defendant. The causes in fact define that the
plaintiff should establish such statement that if the defendant did not involve in the
actions then the plaintiff would not have any injuries or harm. Therefore according to the
example of the defendant where he owns a duty while he is loading the truck with the bag
of vegetables. The defendant has stopped his actions while he identify a child is near to
him. Therefore the defendant alertness of moving the vegetable bags not cause any harm
to the child.
Therefore when the plaintiff held liable to the defendant for the negligence for the loss or
damage it is necessary to prove the cause of the substantial damage of the plaintiff. When
16 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

7TORT LAW
defendant owned the duty of care and while he breaches the duty and causes the injury or any
loss it is necessary to prove the actual cause of breach of Duty he is the reason for the injury or
damage or any loss by the plaintiff17.
 The proximate cause is related with the defendant’s responsibilities in the negligence.
While proving the actual cause of injury or damage by the defendant the plaintiff needs to
prove the actual reasons. However in the negligence cases the defendant only held
responsible for harms or loss which has been occurred due to his actions. If any damage
occur totally outside of the scope of the risk then plaintiff never able to prove the cause of
damage which is known as proximate cause. The legal area of remoteness or position
should be not too remote or not a proximate cause. If any harm occur for any other reason
along with dependent action towards the plaintiff then it is necessary that the plaintiff will
only held liable the defendant for that only clause of injuries or damages18.
 In the part of damages it is necessary to establish the facts where the defendant has
intentionally caused the damage to the plaintiff. In the cases of negligence the harm only
occurs according to the action of the defendant. If there is a breach of Duty establishes
and that breach cause pecuniary injury to the plaintiff then it cause the damage and if the
negligence occurs mistakenly by the defendant then it will be difficult for the plaintiff to
prove the cause of the harm of the plaintiff19.
 In the law of tort the damage of the plaintiff could be effected as physical, economic or
both which make the loss of personal injury or reputational damages. It will also
17 Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.
18 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity
19 Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.

8TORT LAW
recognize as negligence. The emotional distress is also a part of tort due to the injury or
any economic loss the plaintiff can face the emotional distress however it is recoverable.
In the law of tort the damages is recognized as a monetary loss or monetary value where the
ham or loss occurs for the negligence by the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff need to prove the
area of facts where due to the negligence, the defendant make the damages to the plaintiff which
is monetary loss and in that matter it also possible to recover the economic loss. If the plaintiff
successfully established effects where he is suffering from monitory loss then it is possible to
clean the damages from the defendant and it can be claimed due to the loss for the negligence.
According to the case study Essendon Football Club has engaged a program of administering
certain supplement to its professional athletes where it has been found that this football club has
reached the world anti-doping authority’s requirements. Therefore due to the breach of the
occupational health and safety laws in Victoria the court has find $200,000 as the compensation
of the beach of Duty. The football players have suffered loss of sponsorships. Loss of income,
emotional distress and loss of reputation20. However one of the players Nathan Howlett-Murray
make allegation against Essendon Football Club for the health issues suffered by himself and his
3 years old daughter where he mentioned that due to the supplement program he and her
daughter is suffering the health issues. Therefore the Essendon Football Club has breach the duty
of care because when the players are playing under this football club, it is the duty of the
Essendon Football Club that they should take care about the players while they are going to
participate in Australian football league season. However it has been found that it is a case of
breach of duty of care by negligence of the Essendon Football Club21.
20 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity
21 Stewart, P. and Stuhmcke, A., 2014. High Court Negligence Cases 2000–10.

9TORT LAW
Conclusion
According to the case study it has been found that the Football club has breached the duty
of care toward Nathan Howlett-Murray and her daughter who are suffered by the health issues.
Now the Essendon Football Club is bound to pay the compensation to him for the damages
which he has suffered along with her daughter22.
22 Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review, 24(1), pp.34-62.

10TORT LAW
Reference
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)
D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017]
Donoghue vs. Stevenson
Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).
Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review,
24(1), pp.34-62.
Stewart, P. and Stuhmcke, A., 2014. High Court Negligence Cases 2000–10.
Stokes v House With No Steps [2016],
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182
The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017]
McHALE v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199
Greenfield, S., 2016. Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different
Jurisdictions, Different Approaches?. Staps, (4), pp.87-96.
Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016. Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the
Risk, and Related Defenses (Vol. 1). California Torts.

11TORT LAW
Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards
Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity
Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580.
Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.