BUS107 Commercial Law Assignment

Added on - 31 Oct 2019

  • BUS107


  • 7


  • 1126


  • 267


  • 0


Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 7 pages
Running head: TORT LAWSTort LawsName of the studentName of the universityAuthor note
1TORT LAWSIssue 1The question in this issue is to determine whether Rebecca can claim duty of care againstMichelleRuleThe concept in relation to the duty of care came up from the famous ginger beer incident whichtook place in England. The case is cited asDonoghue 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 ofAustralian Knitting Mills, Ld. v.Grant2in 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 ofCaparo Industries pIc v Dickman3it 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-11932 AC 522250 C. L. R. 3873[1990] 2 AC 605
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 ofVaughan v Menlove4it 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
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document