Legal Case Study: Analyzing Caroline Davis's Liability in Fiji

This case study analyzes the potential liability of Caroline Davis in a personal injury case, focusing on the application of Fiji law. The scenario involves Shuba, who was injured while riding a bicycle owned by Caroline. The analysis delves into the concepts of negligence, duty of care, and contributory negligence, referencing relevant case laws like Donoghue vs. Stevenson and the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors) Act 1946 of Fiji. The assignment assesses whether Caroline Davis can be considered a party to the suit, considering her role as the bicycle owner and the circumstances of the accident, including Shuba's actions. The conclusion suggests that Caroline Davis may not be liable, given the duty of care exercised and the principle of contributory negligence, where Shuba's actions contributed to the accident. The strengths and weaknesses of the case against Caroline Davis are evaluated, highlighting the importance of the weather conditions and the safety tips provided. The case study provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the situation within the Fijian legal framework.

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1CASE STUDY
Scenario 1:
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Caroline Davis can be a party to the suit.
Rules:
Negligence is the failure to exercise the duty of care been obliged upon the
defendant towards the plaintiff and the failure of which has resulted in the harm to the plaintiff
and such harm shall be compensated to it’s actual amount. The leading case law in this scenario
is the Donoghue vs. Stevenson1.
Contributory negligence is the defense against the tort of negligence according to which
the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any compensation from the defendant if the plaintiff has
contributed to the act or omission of the act causing such harm2. However, the modern jurist
have taken the approach of comparative negligence to reduce the compensation for the harm
caused to the plaintiff. The outcome of contributory negligence is harsh and thus, while
determining the contributory negligence, the court will award the damages in quantum to the
harm caused by the defendant and the act of negligence contributed by the plaintiff.
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors) Act 1946 of Fiji section 2-5
explains the doctrine of contributory negligence. In Fiji, the doctrine of contributory negligence
differs from that of the Common Law because the damages are awarded on the basis of the
quantum of harm caused by the defendant3. In other words, the comparative negligence of
Common law is contributory negligence of Fiji Law. However, the liability limitations of the
1 [1932] UKHL 100
2 Butterfield vs. Forrester 11 East 6, 103 Eng. Rep 926
3 Attorney-General of Fiji and Others v Pacoil Fiji Ltd Civ App ABU0014, 29 November 1996, 22.

2CASE STUDY
contract and the defence under the contract law shall not cease to apply to the parties. In other
words, it can be said that the remedies given under the contract law shall continue to operate
along with the application of the Law Reform Act (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors)
Act 1946 of Fiji.
Application:
In the given scenario, Shubha was riding her friend’s bicycle. The friend is Caroline
Davis. She had exercised her duty of care by guiding Shuba through the safety tips while
bicycling. Therefore, she cannot be made party to the suit. However, it was also the mistake of
Shubha to ride the bicycle on a wet road when the vehicles are prone to skid. Therefore, it is the
fault of Shubha to agree to ride a bicycle along with Caroline to agree to take Shubha fir cycling
on a wet day. Thus by applying the Fiji Act and as well as the common law of the contributory or
comparative negligence, it can be said that Caroline cannot be a party to the suit.
The strength of the case against Caroline is that she was the owner off the cycle and
hence she owed the duty of care towards Shubha while giving her the cycle and it was breached
when she did not take care of Shubha while riding the cycle. However, the weakness lies in the
fact that Caroline had already exercised her duty in providing her the tips for the safe cycle and
that the weather was rainy before the accident imbibes that every reasonable person would take
personal care while cycling in such wet weather and hence, Caroline can plea for contributory
negligence in the case.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Caroline cannot be made party to the suit.

3CASE STUDY

4CASE STUDY
Bibliography:
Case Laws:
Donoghue vs Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Butterfield vs. Forrester 11 East 6, 103 Eng. Rep 926
Attorney-General of Fiji and Others v Pacoil Fiji Ltd Civ App ABU0014, 29 November 1996,
22.