The Arena of Tort Liabilities-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Question: Advise MacTools Ltd as to its legal position, citing relevant legal authority. Answer: Issue: The issue of the case is whether the company is liable to compensate the victims or not. Laws: The present case is based on the provision of contributory negligence and the provision of duty of care (Ferrara et al., 2016). These two provisions are tortuous in nature and are specifically defined under the arena of tort liabilities. Duty of care is a well known principle in the tort law and attracts the provision of the negligence (Barry, 2017). In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, it was held by the court that in case of negligence it is to be proved that the defendant had breached the duty of care and the causes damaged to another (Stewart Stuhmcke, 2014). In case of duty of negligence, Caparo test is to be applicable regarding the injury of person and property. In Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) 3 Bing N.C. 467, if there is an allegation made against the defendant and the allegation get proved, he will be liable for the breach of duty (McLachlan, 2013). The principle also laid down under the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. Duty of care is a legal obligation to show certain reasonable care to a man that a prudent man would do at that position. It is the duty of a person to foresee the effects of the acts that are performed by him. The term contributory negligence is a part of the general defence system under the arena of the tort law. It determines the responsibility of the claimants regarding the accident and loss caused by him. It is a partial defence to the wrong doer regarding the acts performed by him. The provision of the contributory negligence has been proved in the case of Pitts v. Hunt [1990] 3 All ER 34, where it had been observed by the court of law that the claimant or the victim is also responsible for the accident and therefore unable to claim full amount of money from the defendant. The term is also applicable in the common law provision off Australia. In Astley v. Austrust Limited (2000) 197 CLR 1, it was observed by the High Court of Australia that where both the solicitor and the trustee company are liable for certain loss, both of them are liable regarding this. Application: The cases that are mentioned under the relevant law section applied on the present case and enlightened the provision of the specified parts of the Tort law (Fordham, 2013). Under the legal system of Australia, there are certain provision regarding the defence of the wrong doer and the provision of the contributory negligence is a part of it. The main objective of the provision is that where the victim himself is partly liable for the injury he suffers, the law bars him to claim full compensation from the defendant. An example of it is suppose a person cross the road negligently and hit by a car where the driver is also driving the car negligently, is barred by law to demand full amount of money. There is no particular rule mentioned under the law regarding the portion of compensation in the case. In the present case, MacTools Ltd. had manufactured certain power-drilling machine and one Mulan had lent the machine (Rajapakse, 2016). His wife Aurora used the machine without reading the instructions and used the machine not according to the rule mentioned in the instruction. This caused a serious injury to her. If the husband of the victim wanted to claim compensation from the company, law regarding the issue, as his wife is also partly liable for the damage caused to her, will bar him. The principle is observed in the case of Astley v. Austrust Limited (2000) 197 CLR . The provision regarding the duty of care is also applicable in this case. As per the principle laid down under the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, it was held that every manufacturer owes certain duties to the customers and they should perform their work diligently. If they are failed to do so and if any damage occurred for the same, they will be liable for that. In this case, the company was aware that a short-circuit may happen if the product is used five minutes at a stretch but failed to take reasonable step regarding this. Therefore, the company is liable under the clause of duty of care (Cusimano Roberts, 2016). A power disconnection is also taken place regarding the disputed machine. Both the company and the victim is liable for the disconnection and the glass worker can claim damage from both of them. Conclusion: Therefore, it can be concluded that the manufacturing company is partly liable for the damages occurred to Aurora and the glass workers as per the necessary provision mentioned herein. References: Barry, C. (2017). Statutory modifications of contributory negligence at common law.Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (140), 12. Cusimano, G. S., Roberts, M. L. (2016). Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk.Alabama Tort Law,1. Ferrara, S. D., Baccino, E., Boscolo-Berto, R., Comand, G., Domenici, R., Hernndez-Cueto, C., ... Pinchi, V. (2016). International Guidelines on the Methods of Ascertainment of Personal Injury and Damage Under Civil-Tort Law. InPersonal Injury and Damage Ascertainment under Civil Law(pp. 583-602). Springer International Publishing. Fordham, M. (2013). Legislation and Case Notes: Contributory Negligence and the Disabled Claimant. McKendrick, E. (2014).Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). McLachlan, R. (2013). Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia-Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper. Rajapakse, P. J. (2016). Contamination of food and drinks: Product liability in Australia.Deakin L. Rev.,21, 45. Stewart, P., Stuhmcke, A. (2014). Lacunae and litigants: A study of negligence cases in the high court of Australia in the first decade of the 21st century and beyond.Melb. UL Rev.,38, 151.