Law 504 Case Study | Assignment

Law 504
Running Head: Law 504 0
Student’s Name
3 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 0

Law 504 1
Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Laws.................................................................................................................................................2
Application......................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

Law 504 2
Issue
Whether the bob is liable for the negligence to various parties mentioned in the case i.e.
Greg, Mary and Mary’s mother?
Laws
To establish negligence, following three requirement does need to fulfill:;-
 Duty of care owed on the part of the defendant
 Breach of this duty by the defendant by not acting as a reasonable person
 Harm to the plaintiff due to such breach
In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER 1, a neighborhood test was given,
according to that a person owed a duty of care to his/her neighbors and for this motive, a person
seems neighbor to another where such person is likely to be directly affected by the action of
another person (Richardson & Rackley, 2012). Principles of the common law of tort have been
adopted under the Civil Liability Act (2002) NSW (the act). As per section 5B of the act, a duty
seems to be breach where a person who owes it fails to take precaution against the risk of harm
even the same was foreseeable and significant and could be prevented by taking some precaution
as a reasonable person (legislation.nsw.gov.au, 2020). The social utility of the act, seriousness,
and likelihood of harm and the burden of taking precautions are some of the factors that need to
be decided whether a reasonable individual would have taken some precaution or not. The third
element of negligence focus on the principle of causation, according to that defendant's
negligence must be the reason for the plaintiff's loss. To check this causation element, a but for
the test has given in the case of Cork v Kirby Maclean [1952] 2 ALL ER 402. This test removes