Business and Corporation Law: MacTools Ltd Case Study Analysis 2017

This case study examines the potential negligence of MacTools Ltd. The analysis focuses on whether MacTools Ltd can be held liable for negligence towards Aurora and Jessie. The assignment defines negligence within tort law, outlining the necessary elements for a negligence claim, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. It references key legal precedents like Donoghue v Stevenson and Paris v Stepney Borough Council to illustrate these principles. The application section assesses MacTools Ltd's duty of care to Aurora, considering the manufacturer-consumer relationship and the foreseeability of harm. The analysis considers contributory negligence, referencing Davies v Swan Motor Co. The conclusion states that MacTools Ltd is likely liable to Aurora, but not to Jessie because the destruction of the vase was not directly linked to MacTools Ltd's negligence. The document provides a detailed legal argument supporting the conclusions reached.

CASE STUDY 2
Issue
Whether MacTools Ltd can be held liable for negligence to Aurora, and Jessie, or not?
Law
Negligence is covered under the tort law and it denotes a civil wrong done by the parties.
An incident of negligence takes place when a duty of care was owed by one party to another, and
there was a contravention of this obligation, resulting in grave or serious harm to the individual
to which this duty was owed (Legal Services Commission, 2013). For claiming a case of
negligence, there is a need to show the presence of six different elements, which include the duty
of care, its violation, resulting damages/ harm/ loss, the loss not being too remote, foreseeability
and the direct causation between the injury and the breach of duty of care (Legal Services
Commission, 2016).
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 is a landmark English case which deals with
negligence. In this case, the plaintiff consumed the ginger beer from the bottle manufactured by
the defendant. This was due to the fact that the bottle contained a dead snail due to which the
drink was contaminated. The plaintiff ultimately fell sick and initiated claim against the
manufacturer. The court held that manufacturer was liable in this case due to the neighbor test.
The reason for holding this was that the two people had a close relation between them, where the
actions undertaken by one directly affected the other (E-Law Resources, 2017a).
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 was a case where the defendant was
held liable for negligence, due to the fact that they failed to provide the required safety gear to

CASE STUDY 3
plaintiff. So, when the plaintiff worked, a rusty bolt fell apart and hit him in his only working
eye. Ultimately, the plaintiff lost his sight and sued the council for breaching their duty of care.
The court agreed that the duty was breached as the safety gear was needed, especially when the
council knew that the plaintiff had only one working eye (E-Law Resources, 2017b).
In order for the claim of negligence to stand, the damages have to be substantial and
cannot be remote. Further, there is a requirement of the damages being foreseeable (Emanuel and
Emanuel, 2008, p. 170). Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 was a case where the defendant
had, time and again, been warned about the haywire catching fire as there was a lack of proper
ventilation in the building in which it was kept. As the defendant did not listen to these warnings,
the court held him liable for negligence. The court also stated that a reasonable person would
have considered these warnings and so, the plaintiff had to be compensated (E-Law Resources,
2017c).
There is also a need to establish that the negligence occurred directly as a result of
negligence of the other party. In other words, there is a need to prove that the actions of the
defendant resulted in the harm or loss to the plaintiff. Once all these elements can be proved, a
case of negligence can be made and the damages can be claimed (Statsky, 2011, p. 18).
Upon a case of negligence being made, a counter claim which can be made by the
defendant is highlighting the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. In such cases, the defendant
shows that the person, who was injured, had made contribution towards the injuries sustained by
him. When the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is established, the damages awarded to
him are reduced by a sum decided by the court (Dongen, 2014, p. 8). Where a person exposes
themselves to danger, they would be held to have contributed towards injures sustained by him.

CASE STUDY 4
In Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291, the court held that the plaintiff had 1/5th
responsibility towards the negligence as he was standing on the side of the dust lorry (E-Law
Resources, 2017d).
Application
In the given case study, the negligence of MacTools Ltd can require them to compensate
the injured parties for their losses. But before that is done, the negligence of MacTools Ltd has to
be shown. The first step is to show that MacTools Ltd owed a duty of care towards Aurora.
MacTools Ltd is the manufacturer and Aurora is the consumer in this case. Donoghue v
Stevenson states that the relation between two parties can result in duty of care. Even though the
machine was purchased by Mulan, Aurora used it and so was the consumer. This was similar to
cafe purchasing the bottle but Donoghue consuming the same. Due to these reasons, there was a
duty of care which MacTools Ltd owed to Aurora.
The next requirement is to show that this duty was breached. The failure of the company
to do anything about the chances of short-circuit was a breach of duty of care as it was their duty
to make sure that the product made by them was 100% safe. This also made the chances of
injuries which Aurora received as reasonably foreseeable. Applying the case of Paris v Stepney
Borough Council, the resulting injuries of Aurora, would make MacTools Ltd liable. There was a
direct causation of the failure of machinery and Aurora’s liability. And injures of Aurora were
not at all remote and were substantial in nature. All these prove the negligence on part of
MacTools Ltd for Aurora.

CASE STUDY 5
However, MacTools Ltd has the option of making a counter claim of contributory
negligence of Aurora. Aurora had been warned in this case through the safety warning and she
failed to consider this. On the basis of Vaughan v Menlove, Aurora would be at fault here. Just
because Aurora never read these warnings, her fault cannot be denied. So, on the basis of Davies
v Swan Motor Co, the damages which would be awarded to Aurora for the negligence of
MacTools Ltd would be reduced.
In the matter of MacTools Ltd’s liability towards Jessie; the destruction of vase was not
directly related to the negligence of MacTools Ltd. The actions of Aurora led to the power
failure and not that of MacTools Ltd. There was an indirect link but not a direct one. Plus, it
could not have been foreseen by MacTools Ltd that such an incident could take place, nor did
they owe a duty of care towards Jessie. Hence, due to the lack of essentials of negligence, Jessie
would not be able to succeed in suing MacTools Ltd for negligence.
Conclusion
To conclude, MacTools Ltd can be held liable for negligence to Aurora but the liabilities
would not be raised for Jessie.

CASE STUDY 6
References
Dongen, E.V. (2014). Contributory Negligence: A Historical and Comparative Study. Boston:
Brill Nijhoff, p. 8.
E-Law Resources. (2017a). Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Chancery Division (Decided by
Lord Langdale MR). Retrieved from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Hyde-v-
Wrench.php
E-Law Resources. (2017b). Brogden v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App. Cas. 666. Retrieved
from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Brogden-v-Metropolitan-Railway.php
E-Law Resources. (2017c). Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467. Retrieved from:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Vaughan-v-Menlove.php
E-Law Resources. (2017d). Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291 Court of Appeal.
Retrieved from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Davies-v-Swan-Motor-Co.php
Emanuel, S., and Emanuel, L. (2008). Torts, New York: Aspen Publishers, p. 170.
Legal Services Commission. (2013). What is negligence? Retrieved from:
http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch29s05s01.php
Legal Services Commission. (2016). Negligence. Retrieved from:
http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php
Statsky, W.P. (2011). Essentials of Torts, 3rd ed, New York: Cengage Learning, p. 18.