University Law: Negligence Case Study - Duty of Care and Damages

This case study analyzes a scenario involving a defective power drill manufactured by MacTools. The assignment explores the legal principles of negligence, focusing on the duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers, as established in Donoghue v Stevenson. The analysis addresses three key issues: whether MacTools is liable for not providing specific instructions, whether a user can sue another user for the loss of an eye due to the product's defect, and whether a third party can sue MacTools for indirect damages. The study applies the elements of negligence—duty, breach, and causation—to determine the liability of each party. It concludes that MacTools may be liable for the injury caused to a consumer due to a breach of the duty of care but is not liable for the third party's indirect losses. The case study emphasizes the importance of providing adequate product instructions and the scope of a manufacturer's responsibility for product safety.

1
Contents
Issues...........................................................................................................................................................1
Law.............................................................................................................................................................1
Application of law.......................................................................................................................................2
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................3
Bibliography................................................................................................................................................4

2
Issues
i. Can Aurora and Mulan sue Mac Tools for not specifying the instructions?
ii. Whether Aurora can sue Mulan for loss of his eyes?
iii. Can Jessie sue Mac Tools for the loss of her vase?
Law
The law of negligence is a tort law which was derived from (Donoghue v Stevenson ,
1932)where it was decided that the defendant is under a legal duty to provide care to the plaintiff
against all his acts/omission provided the plaintiff and the defendant share proximate
relationship. To prove a defendant negligent the main requirements includes: (Beever, 2007)
i. Duty of care – The defendant when undertaking any action/omission then he is under
legal duty to carry out his acts/inactions in such a manner so that no injury/damage is
caused to the plaintiff (Winterbottom v Wright , 1842). But the defendant is under
this legal duty of care provided:
The plaintiff is the neighbor of the defendant, that is, the plaintiff is placed at such a
position so that the acts/omissions of the defendant impact the plaintiff directly. There
must be proximity and closeness that exists amid them. The defendant is not duty
bound to provide care to all the persons and is only answerable for his acts towards
the plaintiff who is his neighbor (Anns v Merton London Borough Council , 1978).
Also, the defendant is only imposed to provide care to the plaintiff who is reasonably
foreseeable by him. If the defendant cannot reasonably foresee the plaintiff then he is
not under any kind of duty of care to provide any protection to such plaintiff.
Thus, every plaintiff who is proximate and is reasonably foreseeable by the defendant
will impose a duty of care on the defendant.
ii. Breach – The defendant must cater with his duty of care in all situations. But when
the defendant is not able to fulfill his duty of care then the duty is said to be breached.
The defendant must act like a reasonable prudent man in the like situation and if his
acts fall short of this reasonability then he has not performed his duty of care
(Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co, 1928). The breach of duty of care is said to
exist when the standard of care that is expected from the defendant is not cater by
him. If the risk is high then the care must be high and vice versa and is held in (Paris
v Stepney Borough Council, 1950).
iii. Damages – Once the duty of care is not met by the defendant, it results in the breach
of duty of care, it is then necessary that some kind of harm must be suffered by the
plaintiff. The harm or damage can be mental or physical. But the damage that is
caused to the plaintiff must be caused because of the breach of the duty of care of the
defendant and not caused because of some indirect means. Also, the defendant is
liable to compensate for only such losses which can be reasonably anticipated by the

3
defendant like a normal prudent man in the like situation. If the loss is caused to the
plaintiff is too remote to predict then the defendant will compensate for such remote
losses (Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons, 1995).
All the elements of the negligence once proved will make the defendant negligent in his actions.
Application of law
Issue 1
MacTools has made a new power drill. As per the law laid down in Donoghue, every
manufacturer is under the legal duty to provide products that are safe and the duty exists against
all the consumers as the consumers are considered to be the neighbors of the manufacturer. Thus,
Mactools is under the legal duty to provide safe product to Mulan as Mulan was the consumer of
the product.
But, this legal duty was violated by MAcTools as the product was not totally safe since the
specific instructions, that is, 1 % chance that a short-circuit might occur if the drill was used for
longer than 5 minutes, is not mentioned. Adequate care is not undertaken by MacTools resulting
in breach of duty of care.
However, because of breach of duty of care there is no loss that is caused to Manual.
So, MacTool cannot be held negligent against Manual.
Also,
It is specially held in Donoghue case that every consumer is the neighbor of the manufacture.
Thus, Aurora is also the consumer of Mac Tools even though the product is provided to her by
Manual. So, Mac Tool owns a duty of care against Aurora also. This, duty of care is violated by
Mac Tool when full instructions are not placed by the company. Because of the breach there is
explosion and Aurora lost one of her eyes and thus there is damage that is caused to Aurora.
So, Mac Tool is negligent against Aurora and must compensate her for her loss.
Issue 2
Mulan provided the drill to Aurora. Since the product is used by Aurora thus Mulan has a legal
duty that the product so supplied must be free from all defects as Auroar will directly affected by
its use. Thus, there is a legal duty that is imposed upon Mulan.
This legal duty is furnished by Mulan as he has provided with the drill with all instructions.
Thus, the level of care that is expected is furnished by Mulan.

4
Since there is no breach of duty on the part of Mulan thus Mulan cannot be held negligent for the
loss that is caused to Aurora.
Issue 3
Because of the explosion there was interruption on the electric power supply because of which
hindrance is caused in the work of Jessie and the vase which is worth S 1 000, is shattered.
However, Mac Tool cannot be held answerable for the loss that is caused to Jessie because the
loss is too remote to predict and Mac Tool is only liable to pay for damages that are direct and
reasonably predictable.
Conclusion
Thus, Aurora can sue MacTool for her loss for negligence. But, MacTool is not liable to
compensate for the loss caused to Jessie.

5
Bibliography
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons (1995).
Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978).
Beever, A. (2007). Rediscovering the Law of Negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co (1928).
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1950).
Winterbottom v Wright (1842).