Case Study: Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Causation, and Remoteness

This case study analyzes a business law scenario involving an employee, Bob, who was injured while operating a machine at Recaf Pty Ltd. The case focuses on determining if Sarah, the supervisor, owed a duty of care to Bob and if there was a breach of the standard of care. The analysis examines the legal principles of duty of care, as established in Donoghue v Stevenson, considering proximity and reasonable foresight. The document then assesses whether Sarah met the standard of care, and addresses issues of causation and remoteness of damages. The conclusion states that while a duty of care was owed, it was not breached, and therefore, Bob's claim for damages is unlikely to succeed due to the lack of negligence on the part of the company. The document references relevant legal cases and provides a detailed application of legal principles to the facts of the case.

Business law

Table of Contents
TASK 3............................................................................................................................................5
ISSUE:.............................................................................................................................................5
RULES.............................................................................................................................................5
APPLICATION...............................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
4

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 tis 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. The issues to be identifies is a care of duty owed by Sarah to Bob. The
presence of standard of care and is there a breach of the same. Also there are any identification
of issues of causation and remoteness to the given case.
RULES
Duty of care
Duty of care can simply be defined as the legal obligation imposed on a person to always
act in the interest of other individual (Bernstein, 2018) . This concept is set in the tort liability
under common law. the main principle of duty of care is that a the person owing the duty have
an obligation to avoid the act or omission which could possibly be foreseen causing a harm or
injury to other people or persons. This means the person under this obligation must anticipate
the risk for those to whom care duty is imposed on him/her and take care to prevent the coming
harm.
The concept off duty of care was first established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson
for its existence related to persons injury and property damages through the neighboring test.
This test stated that there two factor that set the care of duty obligation on person. This includes
5

the reasonable foresight of harm and a relation of proximity. The reasonable foresight under the
duty of care was established in the case of Topp v London Country Bus in 1993, it was held that
a person or organisation cannot be stated to foresee the risk for the act of their party (Topp v
London Country Bus [1993] 1 WLR 976, 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 Bourhill v Young in 1943 as that to set a duty of care there must be a definite and clear
relationship between the parties (Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 9, 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 defines the degree of attentiveness, causation and
prudence that a reasonable person in the certain circumstances would exercise (Butler, 2018). 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. This concept requires a person to act in specify way to avoid the risk on the
person to whom a duty of care is owed.
Causation and remoteness
Causation under the tort law states that a person making a claim of negligence must
establish that a loss has been suffered which was caused by the act of the 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 case of Barnett v Chelsea &
Kensington Hospital as the test established that would the result have occurred but for the act or
omission of the defendant, if yes, the defendant is not liable (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington
Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428, 2019).
Remoteness to damages:
6

Under the tort law remoteness of damage relates to the requirement that the damages
must be of foreseeable type. This means under the negligence claim the claimant has to establish
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 case
of Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd that to set the remoteness of damage there is
requirement that damage was foreseeable and that the defendant is directly liable for
consequence of their action.
APPLICATION
With stating the rules related with law it can be applied to the given case of Bob. For the
duty of care by applying the neighboring test established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson it
can be seen that Sarah owed a duty of care towards Bob (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562,
2019). There was presence of 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 breach of standard of 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.
The causation in this case cannot be established as the harm suffered by Bob was not
caused due to negligence act of Sarah. As stated in the case 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.
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]
7

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. Also she was liable for the standard of
care to protect Bob from the foreseeable risk of getting injured and she did oblige her duty there
was no beach of standard of care. Moreover that was no establishment of causation and
remoteness to damages as the company on behalf of Sarah was not under negligence. This
clearly gives a final conclusion that the action brought by Bob for the damage claims does not
constitute to be negligence on part of the company and he cannot succeed in his actions of
damage claim.
8

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>.
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92. 2019. [online]. Available through :< http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/Bourhill-v-Young.php>
Topp v London Country Bus [1993] 1 WLR 976. 2019. [online]. Available through :< http://e-
lawresources.co.uk/Topp-v-London-Country-Bus.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>
9

10