BUS107 Commercial Law | Assignment

Added on - 30 Oct 2019

  • BUS107

    Course

  • 8

    Pages

  • 1499

    Words

  • 174

    Views

  • 0

    Downloads

Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 8 pages
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnCommercial LawBUS107(Student Details: )
NEGLIGENCE2Issue 1Whether a duty of care is owed by Michelle to Rebecca, or not?Rule 1In a case of negligence, party A owes a duty of care to party B, due to the proximity betweenthe parties where the actions of one can impact the other, and when A undertakes such action,B is injured or harmed (Statsky, 2011). For establishing the presence of negligence, the injuredharmed party has to show that a duty of care had been present, which had been contravened,and resulted in injury or harm, which was not too remote, reasonable foreseeability, and thatthere had been a direct causation between the injury and the breach of duty of care (Greene,2013).Anoteworthy case for making a case of negligence for showing presence of duty of care isCaparo Industries plc v Dickman[1990] 2 AC 605 where the court presented a threefold testwhere there is a need to show that the parties were in proximity for the actions of one to affectother, there has to be a reasonable foreseeability in the risk of harm, and there has to bejustness for imposition of penalties on the defaulting party (Lunney and Oliphant, 2013).Application 1In the given case study, an intoxicated driver is bound to cause an accident, so there is apresence of reasonable foreseeability of risk of harm. The duty of care is care was owed byMichelle towards Rebecca as she was the driver of the care and owed a duty of care to drive
NEGLIGENCE3carefully and without being intoxicated to her passenger Rebecca. Applying the case ofCaparoIndustries plc v Dickman, there was proximity between Rebecca being a passenger and Michellebeing a driver. Reasonable foreseeability has already been shown, so applying penalties wouldbe just in this case, thus fulfilling the threefold test.Conclusion 1Hence, a duty of care was owed by Michelle to Rebecca.Issue 2Whether a breach of duty of care took place on part of Michelle, or not?Rule 2There is a need for establishing that after presence of duty of care, the same was violated.Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] UKHL 100 was a case in which the court denied the claim of themanufacturer that a duty of care was not present in this case due to the fact that the partieshad proximity between them along with presence of the risk of harm was reasonablyforeseeable. As this duty was failed, the manufacturer was asked to reimburse the plaintiff fortheir illness. This case clearly highlighted the different elements of negligence, which have to bepresent to show a case of negligence (Latimer, 2012).
desklib-logo
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document