Business Law Case Study: Analysis of Negligence in Media Articles

This case study delves into the core principles of civil law, defining its purpose in resolving disputes and providing compensation for harm. It meticulously defines tort law and negligence, emphasizing the concept of a civil wrong and the failure to exercise reasonable care. The study then outlines the three essential elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, and causation of harm, referencing key legal precedents such as Donoghue v Stevenson, McHale v Watson, and Barnett v Chelsea Hospital. The assignment analyzes two provided media articles, identifying potential plaintiffs and defendants in negligence actions. One article is selected for a detailed examination of how the three elements of negligence might be established, supported by specific facts from the article. Finally, the study considers the broader societal implications of holding a defendant liable for negligence, particularly in the context of mental health issues within the police force, including the consequences of neglecting mental illness and the lack of clarity in statutory definitions. The study concludes by summarizing the key aspects of civil law and the elements of negligence, drawing from the selected articles to illustrate these legal principles.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Introduction
In this case study the main purpose of the Civil Law has been discussed. The
definitions of Tort Law and Negligence have also been provided. The case study also
describes the three elements of the Tort of Negligence that are required for the establishment
of liabilities of the parties, with reference to case authorities. In the next part two of the
articles from the list provided are selected for identifying all the possible defendants and the
plaintiffs to any negligence action in each of the two articles. One of the selected articles is
further selected for discussion for the likeliness of the establishment of the three elements of
negligence. In the final part the consequences or the potential implication of holding the
defendant liable for action in negligence to the society are discussed.
Purpose of Civil Law
The main aim of civil law is to be resolving the disputes between two parties and to
be providing them with compensation in case one of the parties in the dispute has been
injured or suffered loss because of the actions of the other parties (justice.vic, 2019).
Tort Law and Negligence
A tort can be defined as a civil wrong, other than any contract breach. The law of Tort
has been one of the major areas of law in which all the cases in negligence and other wrongs
that are intentional and causes harm have are seen as being included (Deakin and Markesinis,
2019).
The failure of any individual to be exercising proper and due care that can be
expected from any reasonable person is termed as negligence.

2BUSINESS LAW
Elements of Negligence
To establish any action for negligence three elements are required to be fulfilled: duty
of care, breach of duty and causation of harm.
As per the neighbourhood test set out in the landmark case Donoghue v Stevenson any
individual is required to be proving that there was a duty of care owed by the defendant
towards them as expected from any reasonable person.
The second element is finding whether the duty has been breached by the actions of
the defendant as discussed in the judgment of McHale v Watson.
The third and final element for a successful negligence action is the causation of harm
where it is required for determining whether the harm to the plaintiff was caused because of
the conduct of the Defendant. This element was discussed in the landmark case Barnett v
Chelsea Hospital.
Article1-
Family of NSW policewoman who took her own life suing state for millions (ABC News,
2016)
Plaintiffs
The husband of the deceased, Andrew McDonald, on behalf of himself and his children
Defendants
The state of New South Wales and NSW Police Force

3BUSINESS LAW
Article 2
Construction company fined $80,000 over death of worker Wayne Vickery at worksite (ABC
News, 2016)
Plaintiffs
Fiona Vickery, wife of the deceased.
Defendants
Canberra Contractors
Family of NSW policewoman who took her own life suing state for millions
The defendant that most likely be held liable is the New South Wales Police
Department. Three elements are required to establish negligence action.
1st element- Duty of Care
According to the ‘neighbourhood test’ laid down on the landmark case of Donoghue v
Stevenson an individual owes a duty of care towards the others as can be expected from any
reasonable person. In the given article it can be seen that the deceased was a sergeant in the
NSW police department and had developed PTSD because of her job. The duty of the police
department is to provide adequate care to the officers suffering from various mental illnesses
because of the traumatic incidents witnessed by them.
2nd element- breach of duty
To establish that there has been a breach of duty three factors are required to be
considered (Goudkamp, 2017).

4BUSINESS LAW
(i) Whether the action of the plaintiff was predictable or reasonably foreseeable by
any person on the position of the defendant as discussed in the judgment of the
case Bolton v Stone.
(ii) Whether proper precautions required for the conducts of the plaintiff in relation to
the seriousness of the harm were taken by the defendant
(iii) Whether the standard of care expected from any reasonable person as discussed in
the case McHale v Watson was exercised by the defendant.
Applying the judgment of the Bolton case it can be observed that the deceased had
previously attempted to commit suicide, and it can be said that the death was reasonably
foreseeable by any individual of similar positions
The second factor that required the defendant to take proper precautions was not
followed by the police department. In the article it was mentioned that Ms.McDonald
suffered from distress by witnessing a 17 year old drown but no counselling, debriefing or
monitoring had been provided to her by the department.
The standard of care discussed in the McHale case was not seen to be exercised by the
defendant. One day before committing suicide Ms.McDonald was sent to the police medical
officer who was very determined that the previous attempt of her to be committing suicide
was not genuine.
3rd element- Causation of Harm
The ‘but for’ test established in the Barnett v Chelsea Hospital states that the
defendant would not be responsible if the harm would have happened despite of the conducts
of the defendant. In the case, however, it can be seen that if proper diagnosis have been done
and proper care was taken after the 1st suicide attempt she would probably not have attempted
the second time and taken her life.

5BUSINESS LAW
Consequences
Mental illness among the police officers is often neglected by the police department.
Within the time frame of February’19 and July’19 5 police officers were seen as taking their
lives at work. As per the international reports the likeliness of police officers to be suffering
from PTSD or OSI are 5 times higher than any normal citizen. The reason for the same is the
lack of clarity in the proper definitions of mental illness and to a certain extent a lack of the
presence of proper statutory definitions (Humanrights, 2019).
Conclusion
In this case study various aspects of the civil law has been discussed. The purpose of
the civil law, definitions of negligence and tort law are provided along with the elements of
negligence. Two articles have been considered for establishing the elements of negligence in
this case study.

6BUSINESS LAW
Reference
ABC News (2016). Construction company fined $80k over death of man at Canberra
worksite. [online] ABC News. Available at:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/construction-company-fined-$80k-over-death-of-
worker/7124158
ABC News (2016). Family of NSW policewoman who took her own life suing state. [online]
ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-11/family-of-nsw-policewoman-
who-took-her-own-life-suing-state/7576870
Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850
Deakin, S. and Markesinis, B., 2019. Markesinis and Deakin's Tort law. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Goudkamp, J., 2017. Breach of Duty: A Disappearing Element of the Action in
Negligence?. The Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), pp.480-483.
Humanrights (2019). Mental Health Legislation and Human Rights | Australian Human
Rights Commission. [online] Humanrights.gov.au. Available at:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/mental-health-
legislation-and-human-rights
justice.vic (2019). Civil law. [online] justice.vic.gov.au. Available at:
https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/justice-system/laws-and-regulation/civil-law

7BUSINESS LAW
McHale v Watson (1966), 115 CLR 199