Tort Law: Analyzing Negligence of MacTools Ltd in Detail

This report analyzes the legal position of MacTools Ltd concerning the tort of negligence. It examines the elements of negligence, including duty of care, breach of duty, and causation, referencing key legal precedents like Donoghue v Stevenson and Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant. The report applies these principles to a scenario involving a defective drill, assessing MacTools Ltd's liability and the concept of contributory negligence, particularly concerning Aurora's actions. The analysis also considers the foreseeability of harm to Jessie, determining the scope of MacTools Ltd's responsibility. The conclusion finds MacTools Ltd liable for negligence, subject to reduced compensation due to Aurora's contributory negligence, while not liable to Jessie, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments and outcomes.

Running head: TORT LAW
Tort Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1
TORT LAW
Issue
The issue which has to be analyzed in the provided scenario is the legal position of
MacTools Ltd with respect to the tort of negligence.
Rules
Torts of negligence are actions which are not deliberate, but attract a claim when an
organization or an individual is not able to take precautions as a reasonable person had taken in
same situation. It may also be defined as the failure to consider ethical or appropriate care
expected to be used in specific circumstances. Negligence is an area of tort law which includes
harm being caused because of a failure to act in a prudent manner.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 522 is the land mark British case related to the tort of
negligence in the legal world. However the provisions of the law had been injected into the
Australian justice system through another landmark judgment in the case of Australian Knitting
Mills, Ld. v. Grant 50 C. L. R. 387 (1935).
The neighbor principle is the most significant concept in the history of negligence.
According to the principle it is the duty of a neighbor to observe due care in towards any person
which can be injured by his actions fore see ably. This is known as the principle of the duty of
care.
As provided by the case of Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of
Brisbane [2017] QSC 103 it was ruled by the court that not having proper mechanism in place
for the purpose of protecting the employees from injury accounted to negligence on the part of
the employer.

2
TORT LAW
In order to institute a negligence claim three elements have to be identified namely the
duty of care, no taking reasonable precautions (breach of duty) and actual harm caused to the
injured person. If any of the three elements are absent a claim in relation to negligence cannot be
constituted as per the case of Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 25)
According to the case of Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor [2014] NSWCA 394 if the
harm can be foreseen a duty of care is established. If a reasonable person deemed to adopt more
caution in same situation the duty is violated. Finally, if the harm is resulted out of the violation
of the duty a claim of negligence is identified.
Usually the “but for” test is uses to locate the reason of caution of harm to constitute
negligence which as provided by the British case Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington
Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428.
However there is also a concept which is known as “CONTRABUTORY
NEGLIGENCE” which a negligent person may use in form of a defense against a claim of
negligence. In case it can be established by the plaintiff that the defendant had some contribution
in the harm suffered by him the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff can be reduced in
accordance to the percentage of contributory negligence. The concept was recently used in
Australia in the case of Jackson v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162 where the
plaintiff was himself liable for the fall suffered by him as he did not take support of the hand rail.
The court in this case only allowed 30% of compensation to the plaintiff and the rest 70% was
discarded due to contributory negligence.

3
TORT LAW
As per the rules of remoteness only those harms which can be foreseeable by a
reasonable person are liable to be compensation by the negligent party as provided by the case of
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2.
Application
The first step which would be required to find out the legal position of MacTools Ltd
would be to analyze the existence of a duty of care. In the Donoghue case it was provided that
manufacturers have a duty to care to the consumers. In the same way it can be provided that
MacTools Ltd had a duty of care towards Mulan and any person who uses the drill.
Now as a duty of care has been found, whether or not MacTools Ltd falied to take
reasonable action in relation to the duty has to be analyzed. There was a 1% chance that if the
drill is used for more than five minutes it might malfunction. MacTools Ltd failed to provide this
fact to Mulan as they feared that recalling the drills would result in a loss for them. Mulan further
provided the drill to Aurora for use. Unaware of the fact the drill was used for ten minutes by
Aurora and as a result it exploded. In similar situation a reasonable person being aware of such
fact must have notified the consumer about the defect or would have recalled the drills. Thus it
can evidently be provided that the duty of care was actually violated by MacTools Ltd.
Finally, the reason for causation of harm has to be analyzed through applying the “But for
test”. In the given situation if it would have been notified by MacTools Ltd to Mulan about the
defects he would have notified the same to Aurora and she would have not used the drill for an
extended period and if the drill was taken back the accident would have been prevented. Thus
there exists a claim for negligence.

4
TORT LAW
However, as Aurora was instructed to use glasses while using the drill which he did not
his act would fall under the scope of contributory negligence. It is irrelevant whether he actually
read the instructions or not. The compensation to be provided to him would be revised in
accordance to the amount of contributory negligence.
According to the principles of foreseeability a duty of care only exists when the harm can
be foreseen. The loss which was faced by Jessie due to the obstruction in power line and the
breaking of the glass cannot be said to be reasonably foreseeable as it does not pass the
proximity test. Thus MacTools Ltd is not liable to the loss faced by Jessie.
Conclusion
MacTools Ltd is liable for the tort of negligence but the compensation would be reduced
due to contributory negligence on the part of Aurora. However MacTools Ltd is not liable to
Jessie.

5
TORT LAW
References
Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] QSC 103
Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant 50 C. L. R. 387 (1935).
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2.
Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 25)
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 522
Jackson v McDonald's Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162
Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor [2014] NSWCA 394