Charles Sturt University: LAW504 Business Law Assignment on Negligence

This business law assignment addresses a scenario involving negligence and the liability of an event organizer, Bob, for injuries sustained by visitors Greg and Mary. The assignment applies the principles of negligence, including the establishment of a duty of care (as per Donoghue v. Stevenson), breach of that duty, and causation of harm. It analyzes Bob's responsibilities, considering factors like providing warnings, maintaining safe trails, and the actions of the injured parties. The assignment also examines potential defenses Bob could use, such as contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk, referencing relevant legislation and case law like the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), Bolton v. Stone, and Smith v. Charles Baker & Sons. The conclusion determines whether Bob is liable based on the application of these legal principles to the given facts.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
0
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Issue
The issue involved in this given scenario, whether Bob will be liable for injury to Gerg
and Mary or not.
Law
In this scenario, the rule of negligence will apply to advise Bob whether he has any
liability towards them. In the rule of negligence, there are four essential elements. Firstly, a duty
of care; secondly, breach of such duty of care; thirdly, any harm or injury causes to any person;
and fourthly, there must be a direct relationship between that breach and injury or harm. In the
case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson 1932, it can be concerned that the plaintiff should establish a
duty of care of the defendant towards him. The test of establishing a duty of care for any
negligent act has been formulated in such a precedent case. Section 5B (1) of the Civil Liability
Act 2002 (NSW) has also adopted such test of such reasonable foreseeability. In the case of
Perre vs. Apand 1999, the Australian High Court has also highlighted various factors to decide
whether there is a duty of care or not. It has included that the harm is reasonably foreseeable and
a close relationship between the defendant and the aggrieved. It should be examined whether
there is any policy for which liability will not be imposed. In the case of Bolton vs. Stone 1951,
it has confirmed that the court should testify such probability or likelihood of any harm, which
may arise from any action of the defendant. Denning L. J., in the case of Latimer vs. AEC Ltd.
1953, has uttered that such foreseeable risk is a matter of balancing risk and necessary steps to an
element of such a risk. In the case of Cork v Kirby Maclean 1952, the learned judge has looked
to the phrase ‘but for’ in any negligent case. There should be a proximate relation between the

2BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
harm and the violation of a duty of care to establish a negligent. The plaintiff may claim damages
or compensation from the defendant for any injury. However, the defendant can take defenses
from such negligence. Section 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) has described that the
plaintiff should have taken reasonable caution to avoid such harm to the defendants. The legal
phrase ‘volenti non fit injuria’ has been described in the case of Smith vs. Charles Baker &
Sons 1891 that the defendant will not be responsible if the risk has been taken with the consent
of the plaintiff.
Application
In this given scenario, Bob has operated a holiday campaign in NSW and maintained the
hiking trails for the visitors. He has given a notice that the hikers should wear hiking boots. Greg
has gotten injured from a barrier, though Bob has forbidden going from that barrier. Mary has
gotten injured, as she does not wear hiking boots.
Applying the case Donoghue vs. Stevenson 1932 in this situation, Bob has a duty of care
towards his visitors. He has an obligation towards them.
Applying Section 5B (1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) in this scenario, the
plaintiffs should establish a duty of care for Bob towards them. Bob has possessed a duty of care
towards the plaintiffs, as they have come to hike that place in the supervision of Bob.
Applying the case of Bolton vs. Stone 1951 in this scenario, that there is a probability of
harm, which may arise from the action of the defendant. In this situation, there is a probability of
harm if anyone does not listen to the instruction of the defendant. They do not listen to Bob.
Therefore, Bob will not be responsible in this perspective.

3BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Applying the case of Latimer vs. AEC Ltd. 1953, the defendant should take reasonable
steps to eliminate such risk. Bob has done so. Therefore, Bob will not be responsible in this
perspective.
Applying Section 5R of the Act, Bob has taken reasonable caution to avoid such harm.
He has hanged a notice to wear hiking boots, as well as forbidden Gerg to go from the barrier.
Therefore, he can take a defense of this section to avoid his liability.
Applying the case of Smith vs. Charles Baker & Sons 1891, in this situation, the
plaintiffs have come under the doctrine of ‘volenti non fit injuria’, as they have taken the risk
with their consent. Therefore, he can take a defense of this doctrine to avoid his liability.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded in this scenario that Bob will not be liable for such injury
of Gerg and Mary.

4BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
References
Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078
Civil Liability Act, 2002 (NSW)
Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643
Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180
Smith v Baker & Sons [1891] AC 325