Assignment 2 LAW 514.docx - Assignment 2 Submitted By Md...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 8 pages.

Assignment 2 Submitted By Md Saidur Rahamn Id: S320328 Course: LAW 514
Case 1 Issue: In this case, issue is whether there was any act of negligence in the context of Nilesh. Rule: According to the principle of tort of negligence, the plaintiff have to show that defendant owed duty of care from plaintiff. According to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and Lord Atkin’s, there is a ‘neighbour principle’ which means a person’s doing has a duty of care to other people who are around him or her and can be reasonably foreseeable. If there is no recognised duty of care, it is necessary to investigate the following two features. First, as stated by Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112, the defendant must be careful with duty of care when it is reasonably foreseeable that the behaviour of the defendant could harm the plaintiff. Second, as stated by Makawe Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2009] NSWCA 412, the court will look into ‘salient features of the case’ with the context of other case which is related to Duty of care like defendant has control over the situation relatively vulnerable of the plaintiff. To identify a breach of duty, the reasonable person test is necessary. According to Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]AC 367, there is breach of duty of care if defendant falls under the standard of the reasonable person. According to Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 and Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 stated that , if the defendant failure to take the simple precautionary to reduce the risk of injury, there is a breach of duty of care by The burden of taking precaution . According to the civil liability legislation , the court must be satisfied that a breach of duty caused specific harm: 1. First vital condition for breach of duty is the occurrence of the harm which is factual causation . 2. Second vital condition is the scope of liability of the
defendant to extend to cause the harm. According to Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 402, it is needed to prove that defendant’s breach of duty of care cause the injury of the plaintiffs. Application: In this case, according to “Neighbour principle”, gardener whose job was trim and maintain a rooftop garden and Marie who ordered the job are ‘neighbours’. According to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] 1 and Neighbour principle, gardener had duty of care towards Marie. As gardener was working in the rooftop garden on apartment building without proper analysing threat of any accident that any person can be harmed who access to the rooftop during the

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture