In this case, John has a cause of action against TAFE for his injury from the accident, he had rights to claim for his cost from TAFE that he did not fix the engine on the wrong way.
There are five steps about the law of negligence, first is duty of care, it is a legal duty owed by one person to another, in this case, TAFE owed a duty of care to John. Because based on foreseeable test, John is a student who graduated form the TAFE, he also proved that the instructor of TAFE gives him a wrong instructions about how to fix an engine, then the instructor of TAFE ought to have foreseen that there is a real risk of the likelihood of injury to John taking account of all the circumstances of the particular case, such as Donoghue v Stevenson case, in this case, the plaintiff found a snail in the bottle, gives the plaintiff mental and physical harm both, lord Atkin said the plaintiff has no chance of seeing the snail in the bottle because it was a brown opaque bottle, the evidence shows that the manufacture owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, they had absence of reasonable care in preparing the product. In John’s case, the defendant was in a authority position, which means they have responsibility to all students who graduated from the school, because as an instructor, he will directly influence John’s working behavior like how to repair an engine. John was only followed the steps told by instructor, then accident happened, it is similar to another case called Mercer v S. Easton and Chatman Railway Companies Managing committee, the plaintiff was relying on the defendant to ensure that the gates were closed during the train passing so that no one will be hurt, the worker who has to locked the gate was not there when a train crossed and hit a man, he is in such a position that required he do his work on right time. So it can be said that TAFE owed a duty of care to John.
Secondly, deciding whether there was has been a breach a duty of care, general principles...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document