TORTS: Negligence Law, Case Analysis, and Legal Implications

This report provides a detailed analysis of negligence within the framework of tort law, focusing on key concepts such as duty of care, breach of duty, factual and legal causation, and the elements required to establish negligence. It explores the application of these principles within the Australian legal context, referencing significant case law like Donoghue v Stevenson and Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman. The report examines a specific case involving Georgina Lloyd and a caravan park, assessing the park's liability for her injuries based on the occupiers' duty of care. It also addresses the concepts of contributory negligence and the principle of 'Volenti non fit injuria', analyzing how these principles might affect the outcome of the case. Furthermore, it includes a discussion on the legal implications and potential compensation, supported by relevant case law and legal principles. The report concludes by analyzing the role of the park authority and the potential defenses available to them, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved.

Running head: TORTS
Negligence
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1TORTS
Answer to question 1
The present case is based on certain chapters of the Tort law such as the law of
negligence, contributory negligence and implied terms of contract1. Negligence is a part of
the tort law. The word negligence derived its origin from the Latin word negligentia. By
negligence, it is meant certain failures to exercise relevant care that is expected in certain
circumstances. In simple words, negligence is a position that arises when a person has failed
to take due diligence and care for their action and could not foresee the outcome of the same
that damage other people and their personal property2. The person who developed injury for
the acts of others is able to claim for damage in the form of compensation for the harm.
Under the Australian tort law, certain essentials are to be fulfill to cause a valid negligence.
According to Professor David W., a person is said to commit negligence when some
conceptual essentials are not being fulfilled. Such Essentials are duty of care, breach of Duty,
factual causation, legal causation, intention and harm. Therefore, it is observed that the first
essential of the contract is duty to take reasonable care so that the act does not harm the
person or the property of someone else3.
In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), it was observed that if there is any fault observed
regarding the duty of care and the outcome of the same injured the private property of the
person then it can be said that there is scope for negligence4. In that case, it has been found
1 Ferrara, Santo Davide, et al. "International Guidelines on the Methods of Ascertainment of Personal Injury and
Damage Under Civil-Tort Law." Personal Injury and Damage Ascertainment under Civil Law. Springer
International Publishing, 2016. 583-602.
2 Hunter, Jill, et al. "The Trial: Principles, Process and Evidence." LAW INSTITUTE JOURNAL (2016).
3 Martin, Kenneth. "Topical matters pertaining to the tort of negligence-the attribution of blame." Brief 43.7
(2016): 38.
4 Cane, Peter, and Patrick Selim Atiyah. Atiyah's accidents, compensation and the law. Cambridge University
Press, 2013.

2TORTS
that the defendant who was a manufacturer of a drink had failed to perform his duty properly
as the plaintiff had found some decomposed body of a snail from the bottle. According to the
presiding officer of such case, the defendant has failed to show his duty of care and therefore
held liable under the law of negligence5.
In Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman (1990), it was held at any act done by a person should
be reasonably foreseeable and there must be a relationship of fairness between the plaintiff
and the defendant6. In Australia, the law of negligence has been developed by the case
judgement of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (AKR) (1936).
In Bolton v Stone (1951), it was held at if a person failed to perfume his duties oh
well he shall be liable for the breach of duty and will be penalized under the law of
negligence. It was held in Dorset Yacht v Home Office, it was held that if there is an
allegation made it is a government for the negligent act they cannot take the escape in the
case as it is the duty to perform for the interest of the people7.
Another essential for a valid negligence is that there will be some evidence that can
prove that certain loss has been sustained by the negligent act of the defendant. The damage
means physical as well as economic laws. in the present case you have seen that Georgina
Lloyd had met with an accident in a park due to the in active participation of the hotel owner
and she sustained injury regarding same8. It has been observed that it is the duty of the owner
5 Goldberg, John CP. "Inexcusable Wrongs." (2014).
6 Strode, Ann, and Priya Pravesh Singh. "Compensation for research-related harm: The implications of Venter v
Roche Products (Pty) Limited and Others for research ethics committees." SAMJ: South African Medical
Journal 104.11 (2014): 759-761.
7 Saini, Saroj. "Damages for breach of contracts Emerging judicial trends." (2015).
8 Satyan, Kanika. "Case Analysis: Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman." Browser Download This Paper (2015).

3TORTS
of the real occupiers of a place to take certain duties for the interest of the customer. How is it
in this case we have observed that the way to the washroom from the place where Georgina
resides was dark and quiet slippery and there is no light that can indicate the way to the
washroom. It was a rainy season and due to the heavy raining Georgina felt on the ground hit
by a stone and sustained several knee injury.
Answer to question 2
Under Australian tort law it has been stated that a person can be so another for
negligence if there was proof regarding the negligent act of the defendant and there should be
certain proofs regarding the injury caused by the negligent act of the defendant9. It should be
proved that the earth that is negligently done by the defendant is foreseeable in nature and the
defendant has failed to perform his duties prudently.
However, in this case, it has been observed that the defendant has failed to take care
for securing the interest of the claimant and therefore Georgina had to face serious knee
injury10. It can be said that the Essential elements of a valid negligence has been fulfilled in
this case and the acts of the occupier of the park has made all the rules properly11. It is the
duty of park occupiers to take certain care to secure the interest of the customer and if there is
any breach happened, the park owner will be held liable. It is also under the law that the
9 Greenfield, Steve. "Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different Jurisdictions, Different
Approaches?." Staps 4 (2016): 87-96.
10 Foley, Melissa, and Martin Christensen. "Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion." Singapore Nursing Journal 43.1 (2016).
11 Carey, Paul. "Should We Keep Running up the Hill: LM v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana." King's Inns
Student L. Rev. 6 (2016): 30.

4TORTS
claimant should have sustained an an injury and in this case we have seen that Georgina faced
a many injuries in her knee.
Answer to question 3
In the present case it has been observed that the authority of the park had failed to
show due diligence and care to the Georgina Lloyd and therefore, it can be said that the
Caravan Park authority is bound to pay compensation to the Georgina due to her leg injury.
There are sufficient evidences that can show that the park authority is liable for the act of
negligence and there was no streetlight in the road. Sometimes before the occurrence of
accident of Georgina, other co- habitat of Georgina, Mrs Halls went to the toilet and faced
similar kind of problem due to the dark road and slippery path. There are certain allegations
made against Caravan Park authority that the rocks that are abundant on the road have
sharpen edge and certain photographs taken by Mrs halls proved allegations. It is the duty of
the hotel authority to take certain cares for the interest of the customers and there is a serious
loopholes found regarding the management of the park12.
It is the duty of the park authority to show certain care to the persons. From the
detailed study of the case, it has been come to know that the tent where Georgina and her
friend were stayed, far distant from the washroom. Furthermore, there were no streetlights in
the way to the washroom and the paths are slippery. There were no specific direction
regarding the washroom and there were boulders everywhere scattered in the ground.
Returning from the washroom, Georgina misleads the direction, fell on the rocks, and
developed injury.
12 Campbell, Ian David. "The absence of negligence in Hedley Byrne v Heller." Law Quarterly Review 132.2
(2016): 266-277.

5TORTS
In this case, it has been observed that the park authority had failed to owe certain
duties to Georgina and also failed to perform the reasonable care regarding the Caravan park
premises. When the claim has been made by Georgina regarding the sustained injury, there
are certain things that can be admitted by the authority. There is a provision under the case
that the caravan park had indemnified Mr Preston in any case of liability regarding the case of
Georgina. It has also been stated that Mr Preston was the health and safety officer. Therefore,
it can be stated that it is his duty to look after the matter and take possible steps for securing
the interest of the customer. However, he had failed to do so. Therefore, they, at their will,
can admit the facts that are supported by the evidences.
Answer to question 4:
Under the provision of the law of negligence, it has been stated that the wrongdoer
will be punished under the law if there is any loopholes proved on his part13. The suffered
person can claim damage from him for the sustained injury and if the allegations were
proved, he has to pay the full amount to the victim.
However, there is an exception to the general principle of this law. If in any case, it
has been found that the victim is also partly liable for the accident and the plaintiff had full
knowledge regarding the risk of injury, and in spite of knowing the fact, he undertakes the
liability regarding the same, the defendant will be partly liable for the offence14. This
principle is known as “Volenti non fit injuria”. There is another exception regarding the same
and that is known as contributory negligence. From the pronunciation of the word, it is clear
13 Backof, Ann G. "The impact of audit evidence documentation on jurors' negligence verdicts and damage
awards." The Accounting Review 90.6 (2015): 2177-2204.
14 Cusimano, Gregory S., and Michael L. Roberts. "Contributory Negligence and Assumption of
Risk." Alabama Tort Law 1 (2016).

6TORTS
that certain contribution must be there on the part of the plaintiff regarding the accident. For
instance, it can be stated that if a pedestrian crossed the road negligently and hit by a drunken
car driver, liability regarding the accident will be imposed on both the parties15. In this case,
as both the parties are liable, the compensation will also divide in between the two parties.
This provision of the negligence law applicable in all the countries.
In Australia, there is a rule of federal government can be seen. Every state has their
own rule. In the part of the New South Wales, half of the claimed money will be subtracted
from the amounted money. The burden of prove regarding the case is imposed on the
defendant and it is their duty to prove that there were certain involvement happened on the
part of the plaintiff. The doctrine is used as a defence in this case to the defendant. The
amount that are deducted from the claimed money is depended on the involvement of
plaintiff and therefore, it is very important to establish the guilt done by the plaintiff
regarding the accident16.
In the present case, it has been observed that Georgina was felt on the boulders and
injured her knees. She claimed damage from the Caravan Park and submitted certain
evidences in her support. From the deep analysis of the case, it has been observed that at the
night of the accident, Georgina was drunk. She had an outing with the friends and it is stated
in the facts of the case that she consumed alcohol. It is true that there were no streetlights and
the paths were slippery, though certain responsibilities accrue regarding the acts or condition
of Georgina.
15 De Mot, Jef. "Comparative versus contributory negligence: A comparison of the litigation
expenditures." International Review of Law and Economics 33 (2013): 54-61.
16 Malone, Wex S. "Formative Era of Contributory Negligence." Ill. L. Rev. 41 (1946): 151.

7TORTS
It is a fact that there was not specific road map regarding the washroom but she had a
sketch of the same. She had missed the way and felt into the stone. Therefore, it can be said
that the Caravan Park Authority will demand for the provision of the contributory negligence.
However, they have to prove the negligence of Georgina.

8TORTS
Reference:
Backof, Ann G. "The impact of audit evidence documentation on jurors' negligence verdicts
and damage awards." The Accounting Review 90.6 (2015): 2177-2204.
Campbell, Ian David. "The absence of negligence in Hedley Byrne v Heller." Law Quarterly
Review 132.2 (2016): 266-277.
Cane, Peter, and Patrick Selim Atiyah. Atiyah's accidents, compensation and the law.
Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Carey, Paul. "Should We Keep Running up the Hill: LM v Commissioner of An Garda
Siochana." King's Inns Student L. Rev. 6 (2016): 30.
Cusimano, Gregory S., and Michael L. Roberts. "Contributory Negligence and Assumption
of Risk." Alabama Tort Law 1 (2016).
De Mot, Jef. "Comparative versus contributory negligence: A comparison of the litigation
expenditures." International Review of Law and Economics 33 (2013): 54-61.
Ferrara, Santo Davide, et al. "International Guidelines on the Methods of Ascertainment of
Personal Injury and Damage Under Civil-Tort Law." Personal Injury and Damage
Ascertainment under Civil Law. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 583-602.
Foley, Melissa, and Martin Christensen. "Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion." Singapore Nursing Journal 43.1 (2016).
Goldberg, John CP. "Inexcusable Wrongs." (2014).
Greenfield, Steve. "Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different
Jurisdictions, Different Approaches?." Staps 4 (2016): 87-96.

9TORTS
Hunter, Jill, et al. "The Trial: Principles, Process and Evidence." LAW INSTITUTE
JOURNAL (2016).
Malone, Wex S. "Formative Era of Contributory Negligence." Ill. L. Rev. 41 (1946): 151.
Martin, Kenneth. "Topical matters pertaining to the tort of negligence-the attribution of
blame." Brief 43.7 (2016): 38.
Saini, Saroj. "Damages for breach of contracts Emerging judicial trends." (2015).
Satyan, Kanika. "Case Analysis: Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman." Browser Download This
Paper (2015).
Strode, Ann, and Priya Pravesh Singh. "Compensation for research-related harm: The
implications of Venter v Roche Products (Pty) Limited and Others for research ethics
committees." SAMJ: South African Medical Journal 104.11 (2014): 759-761.

10TORTS