Massey University Tort Law: Negligence Case Study Analysis

This case study examines a tort law scenario involving Bart, a truck driver, and Milhouse Bakery, exploring the concept of negligence. Bart, driving negligently, caused an accident that resulted in the destruction of eggs and subsequent losses for Milhouse Bakery. The analysis focuses on determining Bart's liability for the financial losses sustained by Milhouse Bakery, including the cost of the destroyed eggs, lost sales, and documentary fees. The assignment applies legal principles such as duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and foreseeability, referencing the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. The conclusion determines Bart's liability for the broken eggs but not for the other losses, as they were deemed unforeseeable and constituted pure economic loss. The assignment provides a clear understanding of negligence in tort law.

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

1TORT LAW
Issue
To determine Bart’s liability to pay Milhouse Bakery the following amounts for the losses
sustained by the latter: a) $10,000 for destroying the eggs, b) $35,000 for the loss in sale, and
c) $5,000 as the claimant lost the documentary fee.
Rule
A person or a driver shall have a certain duty of care towards another driver driving on the
same road or adjacent road, thereby maintaining safety standards in terms of driving so that a
fellow driver or pedestrian does not feel unsafe (Evans-Jones & Scott, 2018). The case of
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 is a remarkable example of determining the person
to owe a duty of care for. The Neighbour Principle was discussed in this case, where it was
held that one must not injure his ‘neighbour’ that is, someone who is in such a close
proximity with another that the person’s actions is likely to affect the other person (Evans-
Jones & Scott, 2018). Therefore, a person must take reasonable care of another people who
are in his close proximity, by keeping a proper lookout as held in Steed v McDougall [2019]
ACTSC 36. The person whose act may affect his neighbours must reasonably foresee any
risk that might occur from his actions. In this context, a driver shall be responsible for the
safety of his fellow road users (Goldberg, Sebok & Zipursky, 2016). In the case of Nettleship
v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, the court had laid down the standard of care that could be
expected from an experienced driver. The driver shall be held guilty of negligence, if he
violates his duty of care towards his ‘neighbours’. The element of negligence, therefore,
consists of: a) a duty of care, b) breach of such duty, c) damage occurring from such breach,
d) the risk was unforeseeable (Evans-Jones & Scott, 2018).
The element of foreseeability of risk is vital to constitute negligence and incur compensation
from the tortfeasor. A person guilty of breaching duty of care could be held accountable for

2TORT LAW
the bodily injury or loss of property of another, however, he shall not be held liable for pure
economic loss, moreover if that was not foreseeable (Goldberg, Sebok & Zipursky, 2016).
Application
In the given case, Bart, being an experienced truck owner and driver owed a duty of care
towards his fellow drivers and pedestrians by maintaining a standard of care in order to
ensure traffic rules and road safety. However, he breached his duty of care when he
negligently allowed the speed of his vehicle to increase, thereby failing to control the motion
and movement of his vehicle and subsequently hitting Lisa’s delivery vehicle. The destroyed
eggs worth $10,000 carried by Lisa’s vehicles was for Milhouse Bakery, which is the first
loss incurred by them. It could be argued that it was easily foreseeable by Bart that his fellow
road users may incur damage, loss or injury due to his act of negligence. It could be held that
the breach of duty of care by Bart is the causation of the first damage/loss sustained by
Milhouse
However, the second loss for Milhouse bakery would be the loss of 5 days of production due
to the absence of eggs and as for the third loss of $5,000 sustained by Milhouse, it could be
argued that such a risk was unforeseeable by Bart as it was not a usual occurrence that could
be foreseen by a truck driver. In addition, it is a pure economic loss, not arising directly from
the loss sustained by Milhouse.
Conclusion
Therefore, Bart shall be liable to pay the amount of $10,000 to Milhouse for the broken eggs.
However, he shall not be liable to reimburse the other two losses as they were unforeseeable
and as well as a pure economic loss.

3TORT LAW

4TORT LAW
References
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Evans-Jones, R., & Scott, H. (2018). Lord Atkin, Donoghue v Stevenson and the Lex
Aquilia: Civilian Roots of the “Neighbour” Principle. In Wrongful Damage to
Property in Roman Law: British Perspectives. Edinburgh University Press.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and
Redress. Aspen Publishers.
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691
Steed v McDougall [2019] ACTSC 36