One Short Title

The concept of duty of care is crucial in negligence law, where a defendant must prove that they did not breach their duty to prevent harm to the plaintiff. In the given case study, Essendon Football Club failed to administer supplements to its professional athletes according to the World Anti-Doping Authority's requirements, resulting in players suffering loss of sponsorships, income, and reputation. As a result, the court fined the club $200,000 for breaching occupational health and safety laws in Victoria. The case highlights the importance of demonstrating duty of care in negligence claims.

Running head: TORT LAW
Tort Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TORT LAW
Table of Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................1
Rules................................................................................................................................................1
Application......................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
Reference.........................................................................................................................................9

2TORT LAW
Issue
As per the case study the issue has arisen whether Essendon Football Club has been liable
for the health issues which have been suffered by Nathan Howlett-Murray and 3 years old
daughter? Are they breach their duty while the program of administering certain supply of
supplements which has been held in the supplement program?
Rules
In the case study the Essendon Football Club has been held liable for the health issues of
the participants in the Australian football league season. One of the footballers Nahin Meye has
suffered health issues along with his three-year old daughter due to the supplement program
which has been arranged by is in the Football Club. It is a case of negligence by the football club
where they have failed to satisfy the duty of care and breach their duty towards their football
players along with the Nathan and her three years old daughter. The breach of duty of care has
been stated in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson where the plane team has gone for having a
beer along with a friend for the defendant is providing the customer services by serving foods.
When the defendant has served a beer bottle to the plant, she has found the compost Snail in the
bottle which makes her feels ill due to having some beer. In this case, the plaintiff has claimed
compensation due to the breach of duty of care by the defendant while he is serving the
customers on duty. Therefore, the service provider has failed to satisfy the terms of duty of care
and a breach of duty has occurred in this case. According to the toddler, the negligence
establishes the terms where the reach of the duty of care occurs and meet damages to the
innocent party. Due to the negligence, any injuries or loss of property or any damage would be
offered by the person who fails to provide the duty of care and which the terms. The law of tort

3TORT LAW
as provided the statutory fact for the negligence only establishes where duties of care have failed
to perform and the breach has occurred.
A breach of duty of care has occurred due to the negligence in the case of Strong v
Woolworths Limited [2012]1 where the court has found that the defendant has performed maid
agency where the plaintiff has been damaged therefore while providing services to the plenty he
has reached the duty of care.
While in a recent case D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of
Brisbane [2017]2 the plaintiff has mentioned in the court that due to the breach of the duty of
care where he suffered damages and injuries due to the negligence of the duty of care by the
defendant. The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [20173] is
another case where due to the negligence the defendant has failed to satisfy the plaintiff with the
duty of care where the beach has occurred. The plaintiff has claimed the compensation for the
injuries the court has audited for the penalties for breach the duty of care. While in the case of
Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] is one of the significant cases of breach of the duty of care
where the plaintiff has suffered several injuries due to the negligence by the defendant on the
workplace. While the defendant is on the duty of care he has failed to provide appropriate duty
towards a disabled person. Therefore, the plaintiff who is disabled has got injuries by the
defendant before the court has been authored to provide the compensation for the damages of the
plaintiff due to the injuries4.
1 Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182
2 D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017]
3 The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017]
4 Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore
Nursing Journal, 43(1).

4TORT LAW
According to the tort law when our duty of care has failed to provide according to the
terms then the Civil liability Acts has made the provisions for the support person who has been
injured or damaged of the property. Due to the beach of duty of care then it will help to provide
to clean the compensation and take the legal precaution against the damage by the defendant. In
the case of Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999]5 the Civil liability act has provided the legal
protection and precaution against the negligence which has occurred due to the dissatisfied the
terms of duty of care where the breach has occurred. When a person is on the providing the
services, therefore it is the duty of them that they will provide every service of duty of care
towards the other person who is supposed to have the duty of care. Therefore according to the
case study, the football club has found liable for the breach of the duties and other health issues
because they have arranged the supplement program and participation of the footballers where
they have been affected. Due to the negligence of the Essendon Football Club, the footballers
have suffered the loss of sponsorship, loss of reputation, loss of income and emotional distress
where they have been affected by such damages and also make the effects in their career. Now it
is important to establish the terms of dissatisfaction of duty of care for the Essendon Football
Club have been found liable for such act of breach of duty of care.
Application
Negligence is only identified when there is a breach duty of care of the defendant
according to the law of tort. It is important to establish the facts of negligence where the
defendant owned the duty of care towards plaintiff. It is defined when the exercise of acts has
been failed due to the appropriate and ethical rules of specific circumstances then the law of tort
has defined the term of negligence. The defendant must own the duty of care and if they got
5 Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)

5TORT LAW
failed to provide such therefore it will make the negligence towards the plaintiff and must cause
potential harm to the person or damage of any property. When the plaintiff has affected with any
loss or any damage or any injuries due to the negligence by the defendant, then he has the right
to claim the damage amount of the compensation due to the loss or injury by the negligence e of
the defendant. It is also important to mention that the defendant is bound to pay the
compensation if the plaintiff has sued him for the claimant of compensation.
The loss of damage can be identified as physical injury harm of private property or any
psychiatric illness or the economic loss.
There are some essential terms of breach of care where the defendant is bound to do the duties
and if the breach has a cause, then it will be caused by proximate causes and damages.
The duty of care
It is the ultimate terms in the law of torts where the negligence is caused due to the failure
of such duty. Now it is important to establish the facts where the defendant must own the duty of
care towards the plaintiff. A recognised and valid relation is needed to establish where the
defendant is bound to follow such duty of care while he is serving the duty of care to the
plaintiff. Now it is necessary that the defendant must determine every duty of care which is
required to establish such terms. In the duty of care, it is necessary for the person who must serve
the duties under some circumstances towards the plaintiff. Therefore when the negligent has
establishes then the court was bound to establish the facts and relation of duty of care between
the plaintiff and defendant6.
6 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

6TORT LAW
As an example of duty of care is when the defendant is driving a truck, loaded with
vegetables and if it has struck with a child then at that situation he owns the duty of care towards
the child. Now it is important to take care of the child and a duty of care when that person has
loaded the truck with vegetables. The duty of care is required for the person a reasonable duty of
care. Here according to the terms of the duty of care, a relationship establishes between that
person who owns the duty and the child who is standing near the truck may suffer any injury7. A
reasonable duty is required to own the duty of care and the court will find the relationship
between the child and the defendant. Here according to the scenario, the defendant is on his
property where he has no knowledge about the child who is standing near the vegetable loaded
truck and the child has trespass the property. Therefore if any injury or damage that was caused
by the defendant, then the court must find the facts of relationship where it is important to prove
the facts where the defendant has owned the duty of care or not towards that child8.
The Breach of duty of Care
The breach of duty of care only occurs when the defendant has failed to satisfy the terms of the
duty of care and the cause injury or damages due to the negligence by the defendant. Therefore
the duty of care must be owned by the defendant where the breach has established. Most of the
situation the duty of care is breached by the defendant where they have the knowledge of the
negligence which is the substantial clause or risk or loss to the plaintiff. Therefore due to the
failure of the duty of care the substantial risk has occurred and the loss has found which is the
breach of care according to the law of tort9.
7 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity
8 Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore
Nursing Journal, 43(1).
9 Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore
Nursing Journal, 43(1).

7TORT LAW
McHale v Watson [1966]10 is one of the famous cares of negligence where the court has
found that the defendant established a standard duty of care towards the plaintiff. It has been
found that a nine years old child has been hurt forcefully by a 12 years old girl while they are
playing in a park. Now due to the hurt, the child has been blinded by her one eye. In this case the
court has found such facts that the child has been hurt forcefully, but she has no knowledge that
it will make harms for the child which cause her blind. The court has also added the facts where
they mentioned that the child is not cross the stage of development where she was on the duty of
care11.
The cause, in fact is another term of negligence where it is necessary for the plaintiff that
they must prove the duty of care which has been owned by the defendant. It has
established the facts where the plaintiff is bound to define the fact that if the defendant is
liable for the damages due to the involvement in the situation. Now according to the case
scenario while the defendant is loading the truck which loaded with vegetables and the
child has trespass in that property where the defendant has stopped his action due to the
presence of the child. Now, it is an important fact that due to the instant action by the
defendant to take precaution and not moving the vegetable loaded truck is not does any
harm to the child
The Proximate Cause is another term in the negligence where it makes the important
terms which has caused due to the actual cause of injury or damages by the defendant to
the plaintiff12. If it has been proved that the damage is occurred due to the damage and
another scope of risks, then it will be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the liabilities of
10 McHALE v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199
11 Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore
Nursing Journal, 43(1).
12 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

8TORT LAW
the defendant in the duty of care where the risk or loss has been placed. Therefore any
harm or injury has occurred due to the action of the defendant then it is necessary that the
plaintiff will only hold liable the defendant for that only clause of injuries or damages13.
Damages are important which has been occurred for the negligence by the defendant. The
damage could be identified by the defendant where the damage could be an injury, loss,
harm. If the defendant is found that due to the action of the defendant the breach of the
duty of care has occurred then the pecuniary injury will be identified towards the plaintiff
and it makes the cause of damage. Sometimes the court as found that the damage has
occurred when by the defendant by mistakenly then the plaintiff is bound to prove the
harm of the plaintiff.
The damage which has been in this case by the defendant towards the plaintiff can be
affected as physical, economic or both which make the loss of personal injury or reputational
damages which are the part of the negligence. Here it is important to prove such area of
negligence where the defendant held liable for the damages and which cause due to the
negligence of the duty or care. In most of the cases, the damages have been claimed through the
capital amount. Where the plaintiff found that due the negligence of the defendant he or she has
suffered the loss which could be economic loss, then the plaintiff has the right to claim the
compensation for the damages which have been caused by the defendant14.
Now according to the scenario of the case study, Essendon Football Club has engaged a
program of administering certain supplement to its professional athletes where the football club
has been engaged in the world anti-doping authority’s requirements. Now due to the failure of
13 Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore
Nursing Journal, 43(1).
14 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

9TORT LAW
the authority of the football club, the players have been suffered the loss of sponsorships, loss of
income, emotional distress and loss of reputation. Therefore due to the breach of the
occupational health and safety laws in Victoria, the court has fined $200,000 as the
compensation of the beach of Duty. Now, one of the players of them Nathan Howlett-Murray has
claimed several allegations against the Essendon Football Club who has been found liable due to
the health issue of him and her three years old daughter. Now he has claimed that the Essendon
Football Club authorities have been breached their duty of care towards their players and he must
provide the compensation where the damage has been done15.
Conclusion
Therefore the conclusion has been identified in this case that the Essendon Football Club
authorities have breached their duty which has caused them to provide the damages as a penalty
to the plaintiff who has suffered the damages where Nathan Howlett-Murray and her daughter
who have suffered from the health issues16.
15 Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore
Nursing Journal, 43(1).
16 Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of
Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

10TORT LAW
Reference
Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580.
D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017]
Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.
Donoghue vs. Stevenson
Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).
Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review,
24(1), pp.34-62.
Greenfield, S., 2016. Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different
Jurisdictions, Different Approaches?. Staps, (4), pp.87-96.
Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016. Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the
Risk, and Related Defenses (Vol. 1). California Torts.
McHALE v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)
Stewart, P. and Stuhmcke, A., 2014. High Court Negligence Cases 2000–10.
Stokes v House With No Steps [2016]
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182

11TORT LAW
The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017]
Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards
Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity