Research Assessment 1: Legal Analysis of Causes of Action and Tests

This assignment provides a legal analysis of two causes of action. The first cause of action involves the spreading of the COVID-19 virus through spitting into a schooner glass, while the second involves health issues caused by a dog's barking. The assignment explores the legal concepts of causation and remoteness in relation to each cause of action. It examines the tests of causation, focusing on how the defendant's actions directly led to the plaintiff's damages. The analysis also covers the tests of remoteness, determining the scope of the defendant's liability for the consequences of their actions, including expenses for hospital beds, medication, and loss of pay. References to relevant legal cases and legislation, such as Bonnington Casting v Wardlaw and DNM Mining Pty Ltd v Barwick, are included to support the analysis.

RESEARCH
ASSESSMENT

1. Causes of action
The term Cause of Action refers to many facts or allegations that give rise to the filing of a
complaint (Bonnington Casting v Wardlaw, 1956). In this given case; causes for action
available for Plaintiff are:
i) Spreading of COVID-19 virus to Plaintiff through spat into schooner glass. Let’s assume that
defendant was unaware about the fact that she has COVID-19; but it cannot be denied that spat
into glass or any container which has direct contact with person either at the time of washing or
consuming is not legal. At this moment when whole world is facing such pandemic; this act is
not suitable and hence lie under cause of action (DNM Mining Pty Ltd v Barwick, 2004).
ii) The another cause of action which can be sue by Plaintiff is bad health due to barking noise of
dog. As this has affect the health of Plaintiff and become the big reason behind mentally
disturbance and force him to take pills for getting relief; it proofs that barking noise has
damaging impact on Plaintiff. Therefore it could be consider for cause of action and claim for
reimbursement of any damage caused by barking noise on Plaintiff (DNM Mining Pty Ltd v
Barwick, 2004).
2. Tests of causation and remoteness to each cause of action
The term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation that is used to determine the types of
misfortunes caused by a breach of an agreement or obligation that may reward a scholarship
(Elayoubi v Zipser, 2008). The particular legitimate reason is in connection with the case of
proof which raises the question of whether the damage occurred as a result of a breach of the
agreement or obligation (Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965).
Causes of action 1 (Spreading virus):
Test of causation: Here the main cause of damage to Plaintiff is showing irresponsible and bad
manners by spitting into drinking glass; it doesn’t matter assuming he would not drink from it
but the matter is; he will have direct contact with it. This contact could become the reason for
spreading of virus (Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd, 1985).

Test of Remoteness: Defendant could be blamed up to expenses bear by Plaintiff on hospital beds
and medicines and additional to this the loss of pay bear by him for not able to work; in other
words Plaintiff could also claim for loss of pay due to hospitalization which have to be
reimbursed from defendant (Tame v New South Wales, 2002).
Causes of action 2 (Dog barking noise):
Test of causation: The main reason behind this causation is negligence by defendant and doesn’t
ready to compromise on this issue. Even at continuous request by Plaintiff has no impact on
defendant, due to which, Plaintiff has face the damage in the form of mental disturbance and
insomnia (Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd, 1985).
Test of Remoteness: For this cause; defendant could be claimed upto the cost of medication bear
by Plaintiff to recover his mental status and any amount which has loss by Plaintiff because of
not focusing on job for the cause; can also be reimbursed from defendant (TCN Channel Nine
Pty Limited v Anning, 2002).

References
Bonnington Casting v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 (Exception to but for: accumulation of causes.)
DNM Mining Pty Ltd v Barwick [2004] NSWCA 137 (17 May 2004) (Overtaking cause. Scope
of liability.)
Elayoubi v Zipser[2008] NSWCA 335 (Duplicative causation.)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW)
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492 (Test)
Monaghan Surveyors Pty Ltd v Stratford Glen-Avon Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 94 (17 April
2012) (Tests for remoteness likely unaffected by s 5D(1)(b).)
Palmer-Bruyn and Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388 (Remoteness in intentional
torts.)
Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962] 2 QB 405 (Eggshell skull rule.)
Tame v New South Wales(2002) 21 CLR 317 (Pure mental harm.Negligence.)
TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited v Anning [2002] NSWCA 82 (Example of intentional tort.)