CLWM4000 Business and Corporations Law Assessment 2 Case Study

This case study analyzes a negligence claim involving Angelo, Cathy, and Bernard, focusing on the elements of negligence. It begins by establishing whether Bernard owed a duty of care to Angelo, using the "neighbour test" from Donoghue v Stevenson. The analysis then examines whether Bernard breached this duty, applying the objective test from Vaughan v Menlove. The case study further explores causation, referencing the "but for" test from Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, and considers whether any injuries were too remote, referencing Wagon Mound no 1. Finally, the study assesses potential defenses, including contributory negligence (Imbree v McNeilly) and voluntary assumption of risk (Wooldridge v Sumner & Anor), concluding on the rights and remedies available to Angelo and Cathy.