Commercial Law Assessment
Negligence is one of the major area of negligence which deals with the harm which is the result of certain carelessness. This is the breach of duty of one party in order to follow the standard of care which is required by law. The tort of negligence results in damages to innocent party. Present assignment would highlight the common law of negligence along with the legal action which the innocent party can take against the defendant. Policies and procedures of Australian Consumer Law will also be discussed.
Negligence is nothing but the failure towards taking reasonable care to the other party which may cause injury or loss of financial assets. According to the tort law, duty of care can be regarded as the legal obligation which is being imposed on an individual person who is required to follow certain standard of care. In order to establish the negligence, it is the prime responsibility of the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has breached the duty of the innocent party which has resulted in harm(Martin, 2016). As per the case study, P is one of a major fan of ABC football Club. At the time of watching a football match, P has been hit badly by a wrong stroke of ball. His glass has been beaten badly.
In this situation, it is important for P to take certain legal action on the basis of tort law of negligence. However, it is the only option for P to take legal action against the local council to whom, the football ground is being owed, as it is impossible for him to take legal action against the player, the coach along with the football club. There are some of the significant elements which must be followed by P in order to proceed towards the way of taking legal action against the local council. Duty is one of the most significant element of tort of negligence which deals with the responsibilities which is possessed by one party to the other(Iacobucci & Trebilcock, 2016).
The outcome of majority of negligence entirely dependent on the duty of defendant towards the plaintiff. Such kind of duty can arise at the time when the defendant is related to the plaintiff. Due to this kind of duty, it is the legal obligation of the defendant to show certain standard of care towards the plaintiff. As per the case study, P is the buyer and the owner of the club from whom, P has bought the ticket of football match. Therefore, P and the local council to whom the football match has owed are legally related with each other. It is important for P to take legal action against the local council by proving the fact that, due to their carelessness, he is suffering from serious injury. The case of Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467where the haystack of the defendant has resulted in severe outbreak of fire. In several occasions, the defendant has been warned that, repetition of this kind of carelessness can lead him to face serious legal issues. In this case, the court has held the fact, this is nothing but the case of carelessness in which, the judgement of the defendant is not ample towards preventing sudden outbreak of fire.
As P is suffering from serious injury, it is important for him to establish the fact that, the owner of the football club has not taken any preventive measure in terms of protecting the audiences from any kind of accidents. Any kind of safety measures have not been taken by the football club. Breach of duty is another important element of tort of negligence. As per this element, the defendant is entirely liable for the negligence while he has breached the duty which must be possessed by the defendant towards the plaintiff. Failure of performing reasonable care in terms of fulfilling the duty can be regarded as the breach of duty(Orchard, 2016). As per the case study, the local owner of the football match has made breach of duty to the audiences. They has not taken any kind of safety measures. If they have executed a safety net in front of the gallery, they can protect the audiences from wrong throwing of balls. A worth mentioning case example in this context is Nettleship v Weston  3 WLR 370. As per this case study, the defendant is the learner driver who is acquiring lesson of learning from his friend. Due to the carelessness of the defendant, the plaintiff has got injury in her knee. This is absolutely the case of failure towards performing certain standard of care.
Proximate cause is one of the most significant component of tort of negligence in accordance to which, the damage caused by certain carelessness must be forcible by the defendant. This is the way through which, the plaintiff can be able to take considerable legal action against the defendant. In the case of tort of negligence, it is the prime responsibility of the plaintiff to prove the recognizable harm in the form of physical injury. Proving actual damages can serve the defendant with the ability to achieve any kind of allowances or monetary compensation. It is important for P to prove that, due to the stray of ball, his glass has been broke which has caused serious injury to him(Stimson, 2016).
As per the common law of negligence, duty of care is nothing but a legal obligation which must be adhered by individual from whom, it is expected to follow certain duty of care. It is important to note in this context is that in the standard case of negligence, the breach of duty generally happens at the time when an individual person fails to perform certain considerable action towards the other. As pet the case study. Bruce is partially responsible for the accident which has lead both Ann and Carol who have faced severe harm and monetary loss respectively. Both of them possess the ability to sue Bruce on the basis of tort of negligence.
Tort can be regarded as the branch of legal framework which highlights that, the plaintiff can experience certain remedy from the lawsuit in order to recover the damages which is being faced by him due to the carelessness of the defendant. In this case, Ann is the plaintiff who is encountering with massive injury as the dysfunction of fuel tank which has been bought by Bruce. Therefore it is important for Ann to take legal action against Bruce that this carelessness has caused severe injury to him(Llewellyn, 2016). Ann can make case against Bruce on the ground that, if Bruce has checked the machine, then the accident could have been prevented. At the same time, it is the civil objective of Bruce to recover the damage which has been caused to the plaintiff. Bruce must provide financial compensation to Ann so that she can be able to make treatment of her damages.