Amber Pretty Exercise Essay

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

53 Cal. 4th 335; 266 P.3d 987; 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288; 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,765

2. In addition, under the rules of UCC § 2-315, (Fitness for Particular Purpose) any cooperation or business that violated an implied warranty of fitness shall be responsible for: At the time of contracting knows a buyer’s particular use (and the buyer relies on the seller’s expertise or judgment in choosing the product) then an ‘implied warranty of fitness has been created.

Other causes of actions in the personal injury complaint - which is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstance. Another cause of action is strict product liability, which is that strict product liability is a legal rule where the distributor or manufacturer of a defective product is liable to a person injured by that product regardless of whether the defendant did everything possible to make sure the defect never happened. Another cause of action is design defect which is when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. Another cause of action is failure to warn which is when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or distributor.

If the rule applied is based on the risk utility analysis, the defendant may be liable for a design defect even if the product complied with all the existing levels of technological advances at the time the design was done. The plaintiff should then use evidence based on the risk-utility factors to establish a design defect and a prima facie case. The trial court must permit the jury to consider whether the risks of injury outweighed the utility of the product’s design so that it can be rendered defective.

The explanatory limits of causation may be illustrated by the following example. Supposing that a defendant damaged a small section of his neighbour’s house roof tiling following an extravagant and negligent garden fireworks display, if the claimant sought to rebuild his house entirely, it seems highly likely that the courts would hold the claimant to have contravened obligation to mitigate; with the claimant held to have broken the chain of causation. Thus, in this instance, the causation explanation justifies the principle of mitigation’s operation as an exception to the compensatory principle.

The Wrong Act 1958 is a law most closely related to people 's daily life, that means it is a legislation dedicated to set lawful regulation when someone in Victoria suffers from injuries of kind, he or she shall be lawfully compensated for his injury that may related to financial losses. After hundreds of years of development, Anglo-American tort law has formed a very sound legal system with negligent torts occupies a very important position in Anglo-American tort law. Negligence infringement is the core areas of The Wrong Act 1958 as well as the main forms of infringement.

Liability for a warning defect falls to sellers if they have failed to provide adequate instructions

• In trial court, found that Baxendale 's delay in shipping the part was the direct

I will not find myself liable under this section because I can prove that I was not acting with scienter. I act with good faith even though I fail to investigate closer the irregularities and also because I wasn’t able to discover the overstatement in the net sale and the profit. I had not information that the information I was certifying was not correct. In the section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. I do not find myself liable because one again I did not act with scienter which is in this section is acting with a reckless misconduct. Negligence is not enough even in this section to prove it as scienter. As in the case of Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, Ernst & Ernst was the auditor of First Securities, Hochfelder sue Ernst & Ernst because he and the others investors find out that the president of First Securities was committing fraud with their money. Ernst & Ernst fail to check the mail of the First Security president because he orders anyone to be able to check. When this case when to court the judge did not comply with this was a matter if this section and rule because Ernst & Ernst did not act with scienter. Aiding and Abetting, in this I find myself also not liable because I didn’t know about the false statement and also I didn’t reckless assisted them on the other person violation also I was not subrationally assistance the other

The definition of goods is given as any tangible moveable items. Shoppers are now guaranteed a full refund up to 30 days after the purchase of the defective product. This demand for a full refund with a fixed time limit provides better protection for consumers as the duration was previously unclear and legitimate claims could be rejected by businesses due to prior legislation only providing refunds if within a reasonable time. This time limit is provided for under Section 22(3) which gives the consumer the right to reject the goods. After 30 days, retailers will be given one opportunity to repair or replace the defective product and this is dependent on the customer.

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.