Risk and Due Diligence: A Case Study Analysis

Running head: REPORT 0
Risk and due diligence
MARCH 29, 2019

REPORT 1
CASE 1:
Director of public prosecutions v Am design and construction Pty ltd & Aldo Ditonto
Introduction
A.M. Design & Construction Group is one of the premier homebuilder of Louisiana. A.M.
Design & Construction Group is advanced and service-oriented Design or Build contractor,
serving the great Lafayette field for Twenty-two years. In July 2015, A.M. Design &
Construction Group breached the safety and health regulation. In this report, the case of
Director of public prosecutions v Am design and construction Pty ltd & Aldo Ditonto is
discussed and critically examined. This report assesses the fine imposed on A.M. Design &
Construction Group to breach the safety and health regulations. In the following parts,
various Common law criteria are applied to whether the defendant will be the guilty of
negligence (Ross, 2018).
Issue
Following are the issues in the given case study-
1. Whether a defendant will be the guilty of negligence
2. Whether A.M. Design & Construction Group breached the safety and health
regulations
Rule
In Australia, Tort law contains the common law as well as, to the less extent, legislature. The
tort is the civil wrong, other than the breach of contract. Torts may be prosecuted on by
private individual in against of other private individual or state to accurate the forms of
actions or wrong. There are various torts are existed, and they normally originate the legal
status from a common law. Since the court may describe the present tort or even identify the

REPORT 2
new ones by the common law, tort law is considered as boundless and flexible to the new
situations (Cooper, 2018). Negligence is described as a breach of the duty of care that one
person owes to other person that results in other individual getting harm or injury. To prove
the negligence, it is required by the aggrieved party to state that the duty of care was owed
that was not fulfilled and that resulted in the injured people being injured and harmed. Apart
from it, it is required to state that the harm which resulted from a negligence of the other
people, that there was proper foreseeability of these damages taking place and at last, the loss
or an injury was not too remote to cancel the chance of the claims being awarded. Moreover,
in the case where a person is professional or that person market himself as the individual with
the particular skillsets, then in case the client is entitled to the standard of care. In different
terms, it is expected by the client to assist him, not hurt him or others. In a case where
expectations are not fulfilled, that is called professional negligence. The breach may harm the
work caused, however this can also be the clerical oversights. Negligence, in some cases, can
be considered a breach of contract.
As per the criminal Code Act 1995, the people are reckless in relation to the situation if:
1. They are aware of the considerable risks that the circumstances exist or would be
present; and
2. Having regard to the situations known to him, it is inexcusable to have the risks.
3. The ‘people are reckless in relation to the results in case where:
a. They are aware of the substantial risks that the result would take place and,
b. having regard to the situations known to them, this is not justifiable to consider the
risks.
4. The question whether accepting the risk are not justifiable is one of the element.
5. In a case where the recklessness is the factor of fault for a physical element of the crime,
proof of meaning, information, or recklessness would gratify that factor of fault.