Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Strategic information system - Assignment PDF

9 Pages2787 Words134 Views
   

Added on  2021-06-15

About This Document

In this report Negligence in law of torts, we will analyse Negligence under tort law includes three essential elements, and it is important that all three elements must be established by the plaintiff for seeking damages. We will analyse applicability of the cap on the damages for non-economic loss immerse the fear that if action falls under the lowest ceiling then it will definitely inadequate to address the unlawful conduct of the person. We will discuss Tort of negligence is considered as the legal action which can be taken by any person towards whom the defendant owns any duty of care in Commercial Law.

Strategic information system - Assignment PDF

   Added on 2021-06-15

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Commercial Law1Commercial Law
Strategic information system   -  Assignment PDF_1
Strategic information system2Answer 1Tort of negligence is considered as the legal action which can be taken by any person towards whom the defendant owns any duty of care. Tort of negligence only arises when duty to take care exists and if defendant breach duty and it cause damage to the plaintiff. Negligence under tort law includes three essential elements, and it is important that all three elements must be established by the plaintiff for seeking damages under this:First element is the duty to take care, which means defendant must own duty to take reasonable care at the time of negligence and this duty must be owned towards the plaintiff. Defendant must breach the duty of care owned towards the plaintiff, which means defendant does not complied with the necessary standard of care. Damages must be caused to the plaintiff from that breach of duty by the defendant (LegalService Commission, nd.). A duty of care is considered as the legal obligation on the defendant for avoiding the causing of harm to the plaintiff, and this duty arises only in situation when harm caused to the plaintiff is foreseeable in nature in case care is not taken on the part of defendant. One more condition is also there which states that there must be proper relationship between the plaintiff and defendant for the purpose of the existence of the duty of care. Part 6 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 defines the provisions related to the negligence, and section 31 of this part contains provisions related to the duty of care. For the purpose of proving that duty of care is breached by the defendant, Court considersthe standard of care which is expected in those situations. Standard of care is considered as the actions taken by any reasonable person in the similar situation. This can be understood through case law Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112. In this case, Court stated that Hearse was negligent in context of control of the management of his vehicle. Court further stated that Chapman was also held liable in this case, as accident was the main reason because of which all these things happen.
Strategic information system   -  Assignment PDF_2
Strategic information system3Lastly, Court determine whether breach of duty of care cause injury to the plaintiff or not (ALRC, n.d.). It must be noted that, manufacturer of the product is generally held liable for any safety defects occurred in the product under tort of negligence, and for this purpose manufacturer can be considered as the company which assembles the goods, import the goods, promotes itself as manufacturer among the public, etc. It can be said that manufacturer of the product is held liable for the damage cause to the consumer from the product (ACCC, n.d.). This can be understood through case law Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562. In this case, plaintiff (Mrs. Donoghue) visits café in paisley with her friend, and her friend purchased bottle of ginger-beer for the plaintiff. Bottle of ginger-beer was sealed and unused, because of which it was not possible to inspect the contents of the bottle. Plaintiff pours the drink in the glass and consumed it, and after sometime when she poured second glass from the same bottle she found decomposed snail in the beer. Because of this snail, plaintiff suffered from gastroenteritis and nervous shock. Plaintiff took action against the manufacturer of the beer that was Mr. Stevenson under tort of negligence. In this case, Court considers the relationship of the parties and as per the analysis of the Court:Manufacturer of the beer sold the bottle of beer to the shopkeeper of the Wellmeadow Café. Therefore, in this contract exists between the parties and remedies are available for the breach of contract between the parties.Contract also exists between the friend of Mrs. Donoghue and shopkeeper because he sold the bottle of beer, which means remedies exist. However, contract does not exist between the friend of Mrs. Donoghue and Mrs. Donoghue because she gifts the bottle of beer to the plaintiff.
Strategic information system   -  Assignment PDF_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Law Assignment: Tort of Negligence
|9
|1722
|538

BLAW204 Business Law Assignment
|11
|2456
|34

LW651- The Australian Consumer Law - MacTools Ltd Tort Law
|6
|1332
|82

Commercial Law: Negligence and Misrepresentation
|9
|1821
|125

HI6027 - Business and Corporation Law
|6
|1493
|82

Liabilities in Tort - Assignment
|10
|2906
|132