Detailed Analysis of Tort Law: Negligence, Liability, and Case Studies

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of tort law, focusing on the concepts of negligence and liability through a detailed examination of a case study. The report delves into the four key elements of torts: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury, highlighting how these elements are applied in the context of civil wrongs. It examines specific instances involving Bob, Laura, Meredith, Kevin, and Craig, and how their actions or inactions led to legal issues. The report explores the application of relevant laws, including the Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act 2008, the Civil Liability Act 2002, and key case precedents such as Donoghue v Stevenson and Strong v Woolworths. The analysis covers the duty of care, causation, and personal injury damages, concluding with an assessment of the liabilities and responsibilities of each party involved, and offers insights into the application of tort law principles to real-world scenarios, providing a clear understanding of how negligence and liability are determined in legal contexts.

LAW OF TORTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
ISSUES............................................................................................................................................1
RULES/ LAWS...............................................................................................................................2
APPLICATION...............................................................................................................................2
Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act, 2008:.........................................................3
Division 2- duty of care section 8 to 10.......................................................................................3
Division 3- Causation section 11 and 12.....................................................................................3
Part 5- Personal injury damages section 51 and 61.....................................................................4
Civil Liability Act, 2002..............................................................................................................4
Donoghue v Stevenson................................................................................................................4
Strong v Woolworths...................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The law of Tort is civil wrong and it is consisting of both common law and lesser extent.
This has divided into the four elements as tort duty, breach of duty, causation and injury in order
to claim damages. However, the tort is a civil law other than breach of contract.
The present case is based on negligence of Bob and Kevin, they fail to demonstrate the kind
of care to prudent person and this results serious injury to person from action or inaction. Thus,
the present report will look upon activities as to advise parties of their rights and liabilities in
tort.
ISSUES
In present case the issues can be demonstrate as, there was a person whose name is Bob from
North south Wales.
 At time, while he was driving his phone range and he pulled to the side of road so that he
could respond to call. After call he has not seen the both side of road in lane before
driving.
 Thus, a incident tool place in that he collided with Laura's and due to it she was forced to
the opposite lane and and that hitting the Meredith's car. Due to it, Meredith has got some
serious injuries in his head.
 However, after the searching and on the basis of evidence it can be proved that Laura was
going above the speed limit so she was not having control and didn't get the chance to
react and void the collision with Bob.
 In this, Meredith and Bob both grievously injured. In this case the negligence was not on
the part of Meredith. He was innocent although get affected by the negligence of Bob and
Laura's car.
After that day, Kevin a person and he has hosted a small get together party at his own house.
 Kevin has arranged many activities as egg, and spoon races, three legged race and apple
bobbing. In this party, the 14 year older son craig of Bob also attended the party and due
to the sweltering heat he was getting so ho so that he has decided to cool off with swim.
 He took himself to the pool, ran and dived into it. Kevin has carefully measured the level
of water in pool, it was about to 1 meter only. There was no signage that can indicate the
depth of the pool In this way, the crig his his head and due to it he suffered from serious
injury.
1

 Thus, in this incident the Kevin was responsible he should have kept signage that can
indicate the measurement of pool he has acted in negligent way due to which Son of Bob
has suffered and get the serious bad injury.
Hence, this all incident has taken placed in the new south Wales in November 2018. The
both of the incidents has taken place due to the negligence by the parties in case. Due to
negligence, the other person get affected so it is a Tort of civil wrong or can be termed out as
breach of duty.
RULES/ LAWS
In respect with theses cases there have been consideration of various common and statutes to
present effective solution to the causes and impacts over the analysis. However, the cases which
are to be used in presenting the proper jurisdiction such as:
 Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act, 2008
 Division 2- duty of care section 8 to 10
 Division 3- Causation section 11 and 12
 Part 5- Personal injury damages section 51 and 61
 Civil Liability Act, 2002
 Donoghue v Stevenson1
 Strong v Woolworths2
APPLICATION
To implicate the favourable jurisdiction with respect to represent the adequate solution to the
issues which were being presented in these cases. Therefore, Bob, Laura, Meredith, Kevin and
Craig have been awarded with the adequate solutions to their cases and issues which have been
enacted to bring the appropriate analysis over the outcomes. Therefore, there have been
implication of various cases which were being discussed above3. Thus, implication of common
laws and statutes will help in presenting the adequate solutions to the parties involved. Therefore,
there will be implication of various tort and negligence laws which were reflecting the targets to
meet fair judgement in such cases. It can be analysed as:
1 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
2 Strong v Woolworths (2012) 247 CLR 182.
3 Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act 2008. 2018. [Online]. Available through :<
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016Q00058>.
2

Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act, 2008:
To analyse the causes and impacts of such cases which were being implicated where the
damage to an individual as well as to a personal property of any individual have incurred. Thus,
in case of Bob on which he has parked his vehicle on the offside from road for the purpose of
taking call. After finishing the call, he didn’t look in rear mirror as well as on side mirror to see
any vehicle is passing through road4. Moreover, in respect with this, Laura was passing on the
same road but she was driving over the mentioned speed limits. Thus, which collision of cars as
well as damages to Bob and Meredith5. Here the negligence was incurred by Bob and Laura with
respect to driving rules as well as not following their driving responsibilities properly. In respect
with this act they will be penalised and punished for their negligence.
Division 2- duty of care section 8 to 10
With respect to the case of Donoghue v Stevenson on which it has been analysed that the
producer has wrongfully presented Opaque bottle of ginger beer in which there was a snail.
Therefore, it will be a negative impact and damage to the personal health and life threatening to
persons. Along with this, the producer was also unaware with that issue but he will be charged
and punished for presenting such defaulted piece among the consumer.
In respect with the Division 2 duty of care section 8 to 10 where a person is not aware with
these issues but take action for the precautions of the risks of harm which denotes the duty of
care6. Therefore, in respect with the case of Kevin and Craig on which, Kevin was aware with the
depth of pool but he didn’t tell Craig as well as place any notice board on pool side. However, in
respect with such issues on which Kevin will be penalised and claimed regarding the issues.
Division 3- Causation section 11 and 12
In respect with this division and part of negligence law where the victim has been awarded
with the serious head injuries incurred in the both cases. Therefore, in these case, Meredith and
Craig have been suffering from the serious head injuries due to negligence of another individual
in accordance with the case of Meredith on which it can be said that, where Bob and Laura was
responsible for noticing the traffic rules and the activities which are incurring on the road.
4 Abraham, K. (2017). The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic.
5 Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376
6 Levine, L. C. & et.al., (2016). Tort law and practice. Carolina Academic Press.
3

Part 5- Personal injury damages section 51 and 61
In respect with the personal injuries and damages incurred by a person to another person
which are the prime concerns on which the parties will be charged and sued for the same7. There
have been personal damages incurred to Craig as Kevin did not notify everyone that the pool was
not that deep moreover, he did not put any board of sign which will reflect the depth of pool.
Therefore, due to such negligence there have been injuries incurred to Craig8.
Civil Liability Act, 2002
To analyse the issues which have been incurred as it has caused physical damages in both
the cases. Bob himself have injuries on which he can claim Laura. Laura was culprit as well as
she was driving the car without considering the speed limit9. Meredith was unaware with such
accident and have faces the serious head injuries. In this case, Bob and Laura were being sues
from Meredith’s side, as both of them were breaching their duties and responsibilities on road
which has have affected the society. On the other side, as per considering the issue of Kevin and
Craig on which making inadequate ascertainment of depth of pool has have affected head
injuries to Craig. On which Kevin will be sued in the cause of negligence or tort.
Donoghue v Stevenson
In this case, the negligence has conducted on the part of teh manufacturer. Donghue went
to wellmeadow cafe and her frend Stevson purchansed drink made from ice cream and ginger
beer. After drinkingh has of the bottle she realised that there was snail floats out o teh bottle that
thing poured in the glass. After it, she became ill abd seeking treatment was diagnosed with sever
gstorientits and schock10.
In this incident, the manufacture was responsible because he must have taken the reasonable care
due to the absesnse of reasonable care in the prepratiobna nd putting up teh commodities can
result in serious injury and consumer life's life. Likewise, in the part of the Kevin, he has also
not provide any snigage nea the swimming and due to it Bob son 14 year old son cirag has got
grivious injuries in his head. Thus, the perosn must perform his activities within the reasonable
7 Luntz, H., & et.al., (2017). Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
8 Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510
9 Ben-Shahar, O., & Porat, A. (2016). Personalizing Negligence Law. NYUL Rev., 91, 627.
10 Eggen, J. M. (2015). Mental Disabilities and Duty in Negligence Law: Will Neuroscience Reform Tort Doctrine. Ind. Health L.
Rev., 12, 591.
4

care so that the negligence can be ignored. In our case, the ving was responsbile because there
was civil wrong as in manner of brteach in duty.
Strong v Woolworths
In the case of Strong v Woolsworth, the applenet Ms strong who was disabled and she
went for shoppimng at woolworth. In this, big W was organised a side walk sale amd had two
large pot plan outside the sake.
Being the disbaled, Mr strong used cirtches to assist in her walking. As soon sghe apoproached
to teh store she went to the look pot plant stand11. At that time, one of her crutches slipped on the
hot chid area and it results in casusing her to fall and due to it she got sustain injury.
In thsi case, the Woolworth is responsible because the area in which side walk sale has been
condicted was occupied by the Big W and it was his responsiblity to take the proper inspection
and cleaning of this area and Woolworth is responsible to take care of all this thing in the
resonable manner.
Likewise, in the case of Bob the same things has happed, he crossed the road without
looking at both side of the lane, due to it the car hited to Lura's car and she went to the opposite
lane in which he got hoted to the Meredith's car. In this incident, the Meredith goth the injury in
serious manner. Howerver, the Bob and Laura's was responsible for their negligence behaviour.
Thus, Bob should have looked to teh botyh side of teh roqad and Lura should have control on his
driving speed so that she could have time to react. Thus, there was breach of duty in nelglihence
manner due to which Meredith's has suffered. Theus, it is a civil wrong or can be termed out as
wrongful act.
CONCLUSION
From the above case study, it could be concluded that in 1st case there is breach of Law of
TORT and Law of Negligence by Bob, Laura and Kevin. Under Law of Tort it is noticed that the
crime was committed which cause legal action into civil torts which not necessarily result of
criminal actions. But in the case as Bob and Meredith are harmed due to negligence of Bob so it
could be included that he is offender and Laura who was crossing the limit of high speed which
resulted into severe accident of Meredith. While in another case it is concluded that Kevin did
not have any sort of hoarding or board including the information that pool is not that deep. There
11 Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress. Wolters Kluwer law &
business
5

should be information which is showing the detail about pool which is showing clearly that the
pool is not that much deep. As due to act of Kevin negligence the 14year boy got severely
injured so it was duty of Kevin to put a sigh board clearly mentioning about depth and height of
pool. It could be concluded that both Law of Tort and Law of Negligence is being imposed on
Bob, Kevin and Laura so they are regarded to as offenders.
6

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Abraham, K. (2017). The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic.
Ben-Shahar, O., & Porat, A. (2016). Personalizing Negligence Law. NYUL Rev., 91, 627.
Eggen, J. M. (2015). Mental Disabilities and Duty in Negligence Law: Will Neuroscience
Reform Tort Doctrine. Ind. Health L. Rev., 12, 591.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress.
Wolters Kluwer law & business.
Levine, L. C., Vetri, D., Vogel, J., & Gassama, I. J. (2016). Tort law and practice. Carolina
Academic Press.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G., & Harder, S. (2017). Torts:
cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Online
Law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act 2008. 2018. [Online]. Available through :<
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016Q00058>.
7