Negligence Case Summary
Legal studies
Introduction
Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person (Law Hand Book, 2013). Negligence can be used when a party has experienced loss or damage from the wrongful actions or omission to act of another individual. This principal can be found in The Civil Liability Act 2003(Qld). The following report will examine the tort of negligence While analyzing the case study of Mr. Jones vs Blue Board Production and will provide an evaluation to the tort of negligence.
Describing/explaining
“The court said to successfully sue in negligence, the plaintiff needed to show three elements which are that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached and that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result” (Herlihy, 2004, p. 278).
In order for the plaintiff to …show more content…
The court then determines if there is a cause and effect connection between the defendant’s negligent act or omission to act and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, this is also known as the chain of causation. The but for test can be used to prove this and entails that harm would not have occurred to the plaintiff ‘but for’ the actions of the defendant. “however, the factor of time can come into effect as if something happens between the time of the breach of duty of care and the damage or loss suffered then that intervening act breaks the causal relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff” (Dosen, 2013, p. 74).
In the case Jones vs blue board, the chain of causation does exist. This can be seen using the but for test. As if it wasn’t ‘but for’ blue board not informing Mr. Jones of the dangers of asbestos then no harm would have fallen upon the defendant. Mr. Jones would not require blue board to provide compensation if blue board had simply informed him of the dangers of
Introduction
Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person (Law Hand Book, 2013). Negligence can be used when a party has experienced loss or damage from the wrongful actions or omission to act of another individual. This principal can be found in The Civil Liability Act 2003(Qld). The following report will examine the tort of negligence While analyzing the case study of Mr. Jones vs Blue Board Production and will provide an evaluation to the tort of negligence.
Describing/explaining
“The court said to successfully sue in negligence, the plaintiff needed to show three elements which are that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached and that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result” (Herlihy, 2004, p. 278).
In order for the plaintiff to …show more content…
The court then determines if there is a cause and effect connection between the defendant’s negligent act or omission to act and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, this is also known as the chain of causation. The but for test can be used to prove this and entails that harm would not have occurred to the plaintiff ‘but for’ the actions of the defendant. “however, the factor of time can come into effect as if something happens between the time of the breach of duty of care and the damage or loss suffered then that intervening act breaks the causal relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff” (Dosen, 2013, p. 74).
In the case Jones vs blue board, the chain of causation does exist. This can be seen using the but for test. As if it wasn’t ‘but for’ blue board not informing Mr. Jones of the dangers of asbestos then no harm would have fallen upon the defendant. Mr. Jones would not require blue board to provide compensation if blue board had simply informed him of the dangers of