Negligence and Misstatement in Law

This assignment delves into the concepts of negligence and negligent misstatement within the context of enterprise law. Part A examines a scenario involving a teacher's negligence towards students at a zoo, outlining the elements of negligence and how they apply to the situation. Part B explores negligent misstatement through a case study involving an inexperienced individual relying on advice from an experienced motel business professional, demonstrating the legal basis for such claims.

Running head: ENTERPRISE LAW
Enterprise law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ENTERPRISE LAW
Part A
According to the law of negligence, any person who owed a duty of care towards another
person breaches such duty and causes damages to the aggrieved, shall be held liable for
committing negligence as was held in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. In order to claim for
negligence, the plaintiff must establish the following elements:
 Duty of care- the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff in the circumstances
in the question;
 Breach of duty of care- the defendant committed a breach of such duty of care;
 Plaintiff suffered damages- due to the breach of duty of care, the plaintiff had suffered
losses;
 Proximate cause- the defendant could foresee the risk that would cause damage to the
plaintiff;
In the given scenario, Mr. Philpott allowed the seven years old children to roam around the
zoo in pairs and explained to them about the dangerous characteristics of the Zoo animals.
However, being a teacher, he owed a duty of care towards the children as they were accompanied
to the zoo with the teachers so they are responsible for the safety of the children.
The teacher failed to carry out his duty of care that he owed to the children as for any prudent
person it is reasonably expected that a 7-year child is unable to take care of himself and since the
teacher had taken them to the excursion, it is their responsibility ensure their safety. Further, the
teacher had caused damages that were within the scope of the risks that was reasonably
foreseeable by the teacher.

2ENTERPRISE LAW
Hence, due to the breach of duty of care on part of the teacher, Simon suffered injuries.
Therefore, Simon may claim damages for negligence.
Part B
Negligent misstatement may be defined as a claim where the party against whom the
claim is made makes a statement and the party bringing the claim relies on such statement and
has suffered a loss as was observed in Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City
Council [1981].
In order to bring a claim for negligent misstatement, the claimant must establish the
following tests:
 the defendant owed a duty of care towards the claimant;
 it was reasonably foreseeable that the actions of defendant would cause harm;
 the defendant had a factual or circumstantial link with the plaintiff;
 the plaintiff was vulnerable and relying on the defendant;
In the given scenario, Mrs. Wentworth was an experienced person in the motel business and
could be described as a professional. The plaintiff being inexperienced relied on her and suffered
loss. Here, the Mrs. Wentworth owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff and being a motel
business professional it was reasonably foreseeable that her conduct or omission would have a
positive/ negative impact on the plaintiff. Further, the relationship between the parties were
factual as she was contracted for the purchase of the motel business. Furthermore, the plaintiff
relied on her advise in order to make a sound decision about purchasing the motel. Thus, the
plaintiff has suitable grounds to make a claim for negligent misstatement.

3ENTERPRISE LAW
References
Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [1981] HCA 59; 150 CLR 225
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562