Negligence Act Business Law

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 66
  • Published : August 15, 2013
Open Document

Text Preview
Tort of Negligence


* Elements of negligence2
* Duty of Care2
* Duty of care elements3
* Standard of Care4
* Causation and the Remoteness of the damage5
* Causation5
* Remoteness5
* Damages6
* Defences6
* Works Cited7

Elements of negligence

1) The duty of care
2) The breach of duty of care
3) Damages
4) Defences
Duty of Care

The law says that if it is reasonably foreseeable that you might suffer some sort of harm Or loss because of something someone else does, then that person owes you a duty of Care. (Villa manta Disability Rights Legal Service Inc. 2007) but even though a person has breached duty of care he/ she still have to maintain a standard of care if this is not been maintained and another party has suffered a loss duty to this act then it is stated that a person have been negligent. Most of the damages caused by a party are foreseeable (Law in commerce 4th edition by Brendon Sweeney)

In this case it is related to Duty of Care owed by service providers to its customers, plaintiff being Country Concrete Pty. Ltd (CC) and the defendant being Sumo Electricals, where the act was caused by Dodd an electrician of the respective company. (E.g. Case law stenett v. Hancock & peters 1939 2 A II ER 572) Service providers normally owe a DOC to take reasonable Care not to cause foreseeable damage in providing the services. (Sweeney, 2010) , ( Law Teacher , 2012) In this case the damage was Purely Economical. According to the case the loss caused to the plaintiff is $500,000. Until 1963 the general rule was that the defendant owed no duty of care for Pure Economic losses (PEL) but was rejected in Headley Byrne v. Heller and partners (Sweeney, 2010) but the case was only related to negligent misstatement but with Caltex case and Hill& Associates v. Van erp. This was further elaborated to Negligent Acts. (Sweeney, 2010).

It’s clear that a defendant may owe a DOC for Pure Economic losses. But it should be proved that there was an existence of DOC by Dodd to CC. as a case of reference Perre v. Apand (Sweeney, 2010). Like in the example case CC was Vulnerable and neither ware of Sumo energies Actions. But Dodd was aware that Sumo Energy was supplying excess electricity to country sides in the times of low use. It’s now proved that the defendant had knowledge of the situation and also if proper care was not taken then he could have assumed the damage. (101, 2011) Duty of care elements

1) Weather the loss suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable? Up to an extent it is foreseeable since he knew that damage would have been serious if he did not take reasonable steps to complete the job, he knew there would be damage but not a specific situation such as this.

2) The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The proximity of the relationship is very vague between the two parties as for the neighbour test in Donoghue v. Stevenson (Sweeney, 2010).

3) Weather the plaintiff belongs to a determinate or an indeterminate class In this case sumo electricals (Dodd) belongs to an indeterminate class since the people who could be damaged by the persons actions could not be identified.

4) Plaintiffs vulnerability and defendants knowledge about this In this case CC is totally depending on sumo energy they did not even have a back –up power plan e.g. – perre vs., apand (Sweeney, 2010). Up to an extent Dodd of sumo energy should have thought about the people who could have been affected by their negligence, if something went wrong the whole city wouldn’t have had electricity and it will affect many processes not just C.C.

5) Defendant did not know that the negligent act caused by him would have made him liable for CC’s losses, E.g.- Johnson tiles v. Esso Australia pty ltd. (Sweeney, 2010)

Standard of Care

General principles that should be followed...
tracking img