Ask a question from expert

Ask now

BUS107 Tort Laws Assignment

7 Pages1126 Words402 Views
   

BUS107 Commercial Law (BUS107)

   

Added on  2019-10-31

BUS107 Tort Laws Assignment

   

BUS107 Commercial Law (BUS107)

   Added on 2019-10-31

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Running head: TORT LAWSTort LawsName of the studentName of the universityAuthor note
BUS107 Tort Laws Assignment_1
1TORT LAWSIssue 1The question in this issue is to determine whether Rebecca can claim duty of care againstMichelleRule The concept in relation to the duty of care came up from the famous ginger beer incident whichtook place in England. The case is cited as Donoghue v Stevenson1. In this case even though theconsumer of the Ginger beer had no direct contactual relationship with the manufacturer of thebeverage the code provided that the manufacture have a duty of care towards the consumer as itwas reasonably possible that the actions of the manufacturer could cause an injury to theconsumer.The same concept was used in Australia in the famous case of Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v.Grant2 in this case it was found that the manufacturers of a certain product reliable 2 hour dutydo the consumers even though they did not have a direct contractual relationship with them.In the case of Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman3 it was provided by the code that a duty ofcare exist when home calls to another person is reasonably foreseeable. The test of determiningduty of care provided through this case is known as the caparo test.ApplicationIn this case it is clear that Michelle has a duty of care towards Rebecca as she is the driver and itis evident that if she does not drive with proper care her actions can cause injury to the co-1 1932 AC 5222 50 C. L. R. 3873 [1990] 2 AC 605
BUS107 Tort Laws Assignment_2
2TORT LAWSpassengers in the car. Therefore as Rebecca was the co-passenger it can be said according to theabove discuss cases that a duty of care exists between them. ConclusionMichelle Owes duty of care to Rebecca.Issue 2Whether the existing YouTube care has been reached by Michelle or not.LawIn the case of Vaughan v Menlove 4 it was ruled by the court that whether a person has violatedthe existing duty of care or not can only be found out by placing another person who has areasonable mind in the same situation which the defendant was in while the duty was allegedlybreached and then observe what a reasonable person must have done in such situation to avoidinjury. In case the reasonable person would have taken extra precautions to mitigate the risk ofinjury it would be determined by the court that the defendant is liable for the breach.ApplicationIn this case a reasonable person if placed in the same circumstances of Rebecca and Michellewould have realized that it is not safe to drive a car in an intoxicated state and it is most likely tocause an accident. As Michelle did not act like a reasonable person it can be said that the duty ofcare was violated.Conclusion4 (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467
BUS107 Tort Laws Assignment_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Commercial Law - volenti non fit injuria
|6
|1337
|343

Analysis of Negligence Liability in the Case of Cliff and Mary vs Susan
|7
|2264
|195

BUS107 Commercial Law | Assignment
|8
|1499
|462

BUS503 Principles of Commercial Law
|10
|2357
|140

The Tort of Negligence Law: Assignment
|7
|1186
|242

Assignment on Elements of Negligence
|9
|2059
|84