Business Law 1: Duty of Care and Negligence Analysis - Recaf Pty Case

This report analyzes a business law case involving Recaf Pty (RPl) Ltd and an employee, Bob, who was injured while operating a machine. The report examines the issue of negligence, focusing on whether Sarah, the supervisor, breached her duty of care towards Bob. It defines duty of care, referencing the Civil Liability Act 2002 and relevant case law such as Donoghue v Stevenson, Sullivan v Moody, and Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil. The report also discusses the standard of care, causation, and remoteness of damages. Applying these legal principles to the case, the report concludes that Sarah fulfilled her duty of care by providing proper training and instructions, and that Bob's injury was a result of his own negligence (contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria), not Sarah's. Therefore, no compensation claim will be entertained by the court.

Business law

Table of Contents
TASK 3............................................................................................................................................3
ISSUE:.............................................................................................................................................3
RULES.............................................................................................................................................3
APPLICATION...............................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
2

TASK 3
ISSUE:
Bob one of the employee of Recaf Pty (RPl) Ltd has been appointed as machine operator. Before
starting the work he was given training and instructions by Sarah the supervisor of machine
operators. Sarah has given correct instruction and even a guide book to Bob before letting him
operate the machine in the organisation on the use and operations of the machine. Sarah is
competent in her work. For the blockage of machine it is stated in the guidebook that it must be
left for 5 minutes to get depressurized before opening the same. In two of the event the machine
got blocked and Bob opened the machine in 1 minute only, but he did not get injured. In the
second instance he opened the machine after this blockage in two minutes and injured himself
with effecting his eyesight of one eye. In this context he has brought demand letter for his
damages and injury. Negligence occurs when a person fails to take proper care of the duty
owned towards the employee. The issues here is to identify and presenting an advise to GM of
RTP as whether Sarah was under negligence for the duty of care owed for Bob.
RULES
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002
Duty of care
Duty of care can simply be defined as legal obligation imposed on a person to always act
in the interest of other individual (Section 5B, CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002, 2019). This
concept of tort liability is set under common law with a main principle of care duty which is
owed by individual towards other person. The duty imposed is related with an obligation to
avoid the act or omission which could possibly be foreseen and cause a harm or injury to other
people.. This means the person under this obligation have a responsibility to anticipate the risk
for those to whom care duty is owed and take measures to prevent the foreseeable harm.
The concept of duty of care is explained in case of Donoghue v Stevenson for its
existence related to persons injury and property damages through the neighboring test. This test
3

stated that there two factor that set the care of duty obligation on person (Bernstein, 2018). This
includes the seeing the harm before it happens or occur and a relation of nearness. The
reasonable foresight under the duty of care was constituted in the lawsuit of Sullivan v Moody ,
it was held that a person or organisation cannot be stated to foresee the risk for the act of their
party (Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59, 2019). The risk of harm and risk must be predictable
that it can occur in the future. The application of proximity in duty of care was seen in the case
of Modbury Triangle Shopping center, 2000 as that to set a duty of care there must be a definite
and clear relationship between the parties where the occupier of the land does not stated to have
a duty of care to take reasonable care to prevent physical injury to a plaintiff form a criminal
behavior of a third party (Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR
254, 2019). This can be seen in the relation of doctor and patient, teacher and student, employer
and employee. These are certain relation where there is a existence of duty of care and a party
owes a duty of care towards other.
Standard of care and its breach
The concept of standard of care defined under section 11 of Civil liability act 2002 the
degree of attentiveness, causation and discretion that a sensible person in the specific
circumstances would exercise (CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002, 2019). A failure in meeting this
standard amounts to negligence and the person failing is liable for damages caused by such
negligence. There is no specific test or criteria to establish standard of care but it is imposed on
an individual by seeing the relationship with those who have suffered an injury of harm (Butler,
2018). This concept requires a person to act in specify way to avoid the risk on the person to
whom a care duty is owed.
Causation
Causation under tort law states that a person making a claim of negligence must state that
a damage has been sustained which originated due to the act of party owing the care of duty. In
general the ‘but for’ test resolve the query of causation under the tort law. This test states that
would the action of person owing a duty of care and standard of care have could have made the
claimant to suffer the losses. This test was applied in the law suit of Barnett v Chelsea &
Kensington Hospital as the test established that would have the effect that occurred by the
4

omitting party if yes, the suspect is not eligible for it (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington
Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428, 2019). Another one is common sense test which was known from the
case of March v Stramare where an intoxicated and speeding driver collided with a truck parked
at night. In this cane the truck drivers and his employer both were held liable.
Remoteness to damages:
Under the tort law fairness of harm is associate to the responsibility that the damages
must be predictable. This means under the negligence claim the applicant has to set up that the
defendant owes a care of duty and it was under the breach that caused the damages. It must also
be established that the damage was not to remote which if not, the defendant have to pay the
losses suffered due to his/her breach and negligence act (Spamann, 2016). As in the lawsuit of
Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd that to set the remoteness of damage there is
necessity that harm was predictable and that the suspect is directly liable for outcomes of their
action.
APPLICATION
As the Sarah and Bob were under the employee and employer relation there was a
default duty of care owed from Sahara towards Bob. can be applied to the given case of Bob.
For the duty of care by applying neighboring test established in the case of Donoghue v
Stevenson it can be seen that Sarah owed a duty of care for Bob (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
AC 562, 2019). There was an established relationship of proximity of employer and employee.
Also the risk related with blockage of the machine if opened before depressurizing was clearly
know to Sarah so there is presence of foresight of harm as well.
Sarah also had a standard of care towards Bob and she has acted in this regard vigilantly.
As she have given Bob training and also told him be cautious before opening the machines as it
can cause him harm. But there was no in serving of standard care as Sarah has told Bob every
time to let the machine depressurize and then open it. Also this fact was known to everybody and
Bob was also instructed by other coworkers to let the machine cool down. Under the civil
liability act , 2002 a reasonable person have a responsibility to take every precaution to avoid
the foreseeable harm. In this case Sarah took the measure as giving warning to Bob every time
5

he opened the machine before cooling down. Also, Bob is a also a reasonable person but he did
not took the precautions to avoid the harm and action against the ranting given to him over
opening of the machine.
The causation in this case cannot be established as the harm suffered by Bob was not
caused due to negligence act of Sarah. As expressed in the lawsuit of Barnett v Chelsea &
Kensington Hospital and with application of but for test that no action of Sarah have let Bob to
suffer the damage and injury. The breach is where the actual conduct falls below the standard
care. In this case the standard care was related with opening of the filter after 5 minutes and the
actual care did not fall below the standard one as Sarah have given training to Bob and he was
told by fellow employee about opening the machine after 5 minutes only.
Remoteness to damages was there in this case as opening a hot machine can cause severe
damages and injury was foreseeable by Sarah as well as Bob, as he have experienced it in the
past though no injury was suffered by him (Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921]
3 KB 560, 2019). But there was no breach of duty of care as in the case of Re Polemis &
Furness Withy & Company Ltd.
CONCLUSION
With application of all the rules in the given case of Bob it can be states that Sarah owed
a duty of care towards Bob under the neighboring test. Volenti non fit injuria is established in
this case which means that to a willing person injury is not done. Here Bob was under the
contributory negligence where Bob makes direct or indirectly contributes for the resulted harm
or damage. In the Volenti non fit injuria someone willingly places themselves in a position
where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to
bring a claim against the other party. With Bob under the Volenti non fit injuria provision of
contribution negligence applies where plaintiff can be barred complete from any damage claim.
Here Bob was under Volenti non fit injuria so no compensation claim of him will be entertanied
by the court. Volenti non fit injuria is established in this case which means that to a willing
person injury is not done. Here Bob was under the contributory negligence where Bob makes
direct or indirectly contributes for the resulted harm or damage. In the Volenti non fit injuria
someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some
6

degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party. With Bob
under the Volenti non fit injuria provision of contribution negligence applies where plaintiff can
be barred complete from any damage claim. Here Bob was under Volenti non fit injuria so no
compensation claim of him will be entertained by the court.
7

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Bernstein, A. (2018). Employee references: understanding your obligations as an
employer. Journal of Aesthetic Nursing. 7(6). 334-336.
Butler, D. (2018). Employer liability for workplace Trauma. Routledge.
Spamann, H. (2016). Monetary Liability for Breach of the Duty of Care?. Journal of Legal
Analysis. 8(2). 337-373.
Online
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. 2019. [online]. Available through :< http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/Donoghue-v-Stevenson.php>.
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428. 2019. [online]. Available through :<
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Barnett-v-Chelsea--and--Kensington-Hospital.php>
Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560. 2019. [online]. Available
through :< http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Re-Polemis--and--Furness-Withy--and--Company-
Ltd.php>
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002. 2019. [online]. Available through
:<http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cla2002161/>.
Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59. 2019. [online]. Available through
:<https://lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/sullivan-v-moody-2001-hca-59/>.
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254. 2019. [online].
Available through
:<http://www.lawskool.com.au/content/torts_law_case_notes_sample_v1.0.pdf>.
8

9