Common Law Negligence Case Study: Castro v Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd

Desklib provides past papers and solved assignments. This case study analyzes negligence in a common law case.

Common Law Case Study
Page | 1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Case study........................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
References........................................................................................................................................9
Page | 2

Introduction
In this assignment, there is a brief discussion on the case study where the cases are based upon
the principles of the Common Law by presenting the arguments in for and against under of the
criteria of the given case. A case study is based upon the provisions of the case of negligence by
meeting out the provision of the four common laws.
Page | 3

Case study
Castro v Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd. (57 ALJR 619) 1984
Issue
Whether the Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd (defendant) is found guilty of negligence for the injury
caused to the Castro (Plaintiff)?
Rule
As per the criteria of the four common laws consists of the provision for resolving the disputes at
the place of occupation by assessing the provision of duty of care and the act of negligence. The
duty of care is a legal obligation which abides the individual to comply with the reasonable care
and its standards while performing any acts that provides harm to others. In case the person this
unable to perform and exercises the duties win ethical manner and with due care that is expected
to perform in the specified situation (Robinson, et. al., 2013). Such a situation is known as the
acts of negligence which cause harm to the others by the act of negligence of carelessness in
some specified circumstances.
To determine the case of negligence, it is important to comply with the essential elements of the
negligence which includes:
Duty – It is important that the plaintiff must observe the duty to the plaintiff which arise with the
relationship among the defendant and the plaintiff.
Breach of Duty- It is an element where the plaintiff owns the duty of the defendant where the
plaintiff must prove that the defendant breaches the duty (Steenson, 2018).
Cause in Fact- In the cases of negligence, it is the obligation on the plaintiff to provide that with
the act of the defendant the plaintiff cause the injury.
Proximate Cause- This cause relates to the liability of the defendant in the case of negligence.
In such a case, the defendant is responsible for such harm that causes the plaintiff act of
negligence (Cameron, et. al., 2018).
Page | 4

Damages- In the act of negligence, it is not necessary that the defendant fails in exercising the
reasonable care that results in actual damages caused to the plaintiff due to the act of the plaintiff
negligence.
The four common laws are mentioned below:
Causation
According to this provision, it states that the injury is caused because the activities are handled in
an unsafe manner and depict the requirement for negligence and its related liability.
Foreseeability
Foreseeability is the requirement in which the party’s action can cause the reasonable injury and
in this, the injury is can be predictable by the person of basic intelligence in case of lifting or
carrying out the heavy object (Plunkett, 2018). These are acts which can be reasonably foreseen
by the party that such an act can cause injury to the person while performing any such act.
According to the provisions of this law, it states that while lifting the heavy object and
transporting it provides potential injury due to unnecessary risk. If the potential risk is already
known that it is the duty of the employer to provide safe working procedures in this context for
eliminating the risk. These procedures include training, supervision, and information.
Preventability
Preventability is the conditions that can be prevented by stopping something from happening of
any vent by planning in advance by suggesting the anticipatory measures for avoiding the
difficulty. These are acts that are preventable by taking necessary actions in this regard (Levine,
et. al., 2016). The provision of this law states that it is important that the employers have to
provide a safe working environment so as to reduce the possible risk and injury caused due to the
activity undertake at the workplace. This is the minimum alternative method to take the support
of another person where the minimum alternative method would be expected.
Reasonableness
Page | 5

The act of reasoning is the act of relative one that is applicable to the particular act or situation.
In the particular circumstance, it includes the person must act reasonably as the prudent person
can do (Van Dam, 2013). According to the law of negligence, the standard of the reasonable
person is the standards of care which are reasonably considered as a prudent person as per the
given circumstances. In this, the individual is required to abide such standards can avoid the
liability under the negligence. In this context, it is important that the act must be fair and
properly complied by the individual.
Facts
The facts of this case involve a workman named Castro’s back is injured which cause the
permanent disability while he carrying out the heavy oxygen bottle and slipped. Oxygen bottle
was used at the site which is 20 to 30 m far away. As Castro is not working as the team member
and moving the oxygen bottle without any support of the other during a period of two weeks.
The site is of such nature it is not possible to use the trolleys for carrying the heavy objects to the
site. While carrying the bottle in the arms he sipped and fall and got an injury at his back. In this,
the defendant states that the bottle is too heavy to carry for a man and there are other workers
also present at the site that could also assist the man to holds the oxygen bottle.
Recommendation
As per the provision mentioned above, according to my opinion, it is concluded as per the
provision of the four common laws is as follows:
Causation
Arguments in Against- Causation states that while carrying the heavy object by the Castro
cause serious injury because of building the heavy object in an unsafe manner. The heavy object
held by the Castro is of (145lbs, 66kg) without any support and walk alone around 20 to 30 m
which is considered to be unsafe.
Arguments in For- According to this provision, Castro can also take the help of the other
workers present at the site for holding it such act is not negligence on the part of the employer.
Page | 6

Foreseeability
Arguments in Against- Foreseeability states that the Castro lifting the heavy object without any
help from the other and even not ask others for help so in this context it suggests that he not
taking the help of the others to carry out the heavy object (Henderson, et. al., 2017). As per my
opinion, it is suggested to the Castro while lifting the heavy object and transport it hat seem to be
an unnecessary risk. If the person knew about the risk then it is the responsibility of the employer
to eliminate the risk at the place of occupation for eliminating the injuries caused due to such
risk. For this, it is the employers to provide training, supervision, and information.
As per the given case study, it is recommended that the injury cause to the Castro is foreseeable
by the employers and it is the employer negligence for not considering such risk and take safety
precautions against the bit. It is the responsibility of the employer to take necessary action to
provide a safe working environment at the pale of occupation
Arguments in For- Foreseeability is the act which can be foreseeable by the employer in
advance against any injury caused due to the act of dangerous nature. In this the employer not
known that Castor cannot take the help of the other while carrying out such heavy object to the
construction site. It is the responsibility of the employer to take necessary action to provide a
safe working environment at the pale of occupation
Preventability
Arguments in Against- According to the provision of the preventability law, it suggested and
assume that the construction site is larger in size so it is assumed that the there is must be large
cranes are present for carrying out the heavy objects. To stop the injury there is another method
of transportation for carrying out the heavy objectives to the site of construction. In this context,
it is considered as negligence act on the employer's hand.
Arguments in For- As per the provisions of this law if it is not assumed that the construction is
large in size and there is no crane facility than it is obvious that workers have to carry out the
heavy object by itself. It is not considered as the act of negligence on the party of the employer
and it also is given that he is not the members of the team than also why he carries the heavy
object to the site without any support.
Page | 7

Reasonableness
Arguments in Against - Reasonableness is the act that carries the balance between efforts and
risk. This provision states that the person performs the act that a reasonably prudent person is
liable to do so. Castor applies enough efforts to carry out the heavy bottle to the construction
place instead he was not the part of the team and then also he carry out oxygen bottle to the
construction site.
Arguments in For- Reasonableness states that in this case there is not enough evidence that
shows that the balance between the risk and efforts for reducing the risk of the equation,
therefore, this criterion, in this case, is not met to blame out the defendant for the negligence
action.
As per the provisions mentioned in the above laws, the defendant found them guilty of
negligence and it is reasonable to claim against the defendant for the injury caused due to the
negligence action. While Castro supplies the heavy objects to the construction site there is least
preventive measure are taken into care by the employer which cause the defendant to not able to
carry the task in a safe manner. In regard to the provision of the fourth law, there is no proper
evidence that shows that balance between the risk and efforts. The defendant is found to be
guilty of all the above four criteria of the common laws are met. In this, as per the given
evidence, the fourth criteria is not meet out and due to this, the defendant cannot be guilty of
negligence act.
Conclusion
In the end, with the discussion above it is concluded that the employers are not liable for the
negligence act as the reasonableness law provisions are not met, it met the provision of the fourth
criteria it is important that the plaintiff must display more evidence to get the claim against for
the injury against the defendant.
Page | 8

References
 Cameron, H., Coleman, B., Hervey, T. K., Rahman, S., & Rostant, P. (2018). Equality
Law Obligations in Higher Education: reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act
2010 in assessment of students with unseen disabilities. Legal Studies.
 Henderson, J. A., Kysar, D. A., & Pearson, R. N. (2017). The torts process. Wolters
Kluwer Law & Business.
 Levine, L. C., Vetri, D., Vogel, J., & Gassama, I. J. (2016). Tort Law and Practice.
 Plunkett, J. (2018). The Duty of Care in Negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
 Robinson, R., Francis, G., & Hurley, P. (2013). Risk and Reliability: Engineering Due
Diligence, 9thedn, R2R Pty Ltd, Melbourne.
 Steenson, M. (2018). Duty, Foreseeability, and Montemayor v. Sebright Products,
Inc. Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice, 39(1), 2.
 Van Dam, C. (2013). European tort law. OUP Oxford.
Page | 9