Negligence Of A Faulty Solar Hot Water System

A health care provider must understand many aspects of statutory duty. Duty is “a legal obligation imposed on one to conform to a recognized standard of care to safe guard the rights of others”. The standard of care is usually related to medical malpractice cases. Standard of care is defined as “the caution and prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances or by appropriate authority for such situations”. This is mainly of importance because all physicians are expected to perform within the guidelines of this duty, and this standard or care changes depending on the circumstances. “Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witnesses regarding whether the standard was met”(Showalter, 2014 p 139). Negligence results in the failure to meet this standard of care, and the jury usually decides if the defendant is guilty of committing a negligent act. Causation is an aspect of negligence. The defendant could be held liable for negligence if the act was considered to be foreseeable, and if the injury occurred from a breach of duty.

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

The tort law section that falls into this case is negligence. Negligence is made up of three elements which determine negligence and duty of care is owed in this case State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

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.

To find out whether the respondents breach their duty of care or not, it turns on 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) which provides that: A person is not unless the risk was foreseeable or the risk was not insignificant or a reasonable person in the person’s position would have

Relevant law: Standard of care requires the defendant to do what an ‘ordinary, reasonable and prudent’ person would do.[4 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 ACT S42]4 If the government’s omission is so

* In this case, we have to look at the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) to determine who was negligent and in specific, we use s 5B(1), s 5B(2) and s 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); s 5B(1) for the reasonable foreseeability test, s 5B(2) for determining if the standard of reasonable care has been breached and s 5R for contributory negligence.

Therefore, the food vendor did owe a duty of care to Luke. Duty of care is the obligation imposed on a person to take reasonable care to ensure that they do not cause another person to suffer harm . Duty of care exists between a food vendor and the consumer. In this case, the food vendor breached his duty of care to Luke. In the case Lynch v Lynch (1991) 25 NSWLR 411, Lynch was born with disability as a result of his mother’s negligence. The court held that the mother did owed a duty of care to her children .

Also, it is only possible to take action in court if there is a breach of the duty of care . In order to claim for negligence, the court ought to consider what is reasonable to expect a person to have done or not done in circumstances. When a person is highly trained, the required standard of care will be greater.

Despite application of the Civil Liability Act in Flight Centre v Louw , in this case the fact that it was carelessness that gave rise to a breach of a strict duty does not automatically base JJ’s claim in negligence. Prior to Flight Centre it was acknowledged that parts 1A, 2 and 3 of the Civil Liability Act apply only to claims resulting from negligence .

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

Duty of care is a first issue in the negligence. A duty owed by one person to another because their behaviours might cause injury that is called duty of care. Your words and actions can have a strong effect on someone or something. Others can suffer injury because of your carelessness. In situation where you should predict the future that someone else could be injured by your behaviour.

“In the majority of cases that come before the courts, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care can be determined from precedent created by earlier cases; for example manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to consumers, motorist owe a duty of care to other road users, boat captains owe a duty of care to their passengers, teacher owe a duty of care to their students, occupier owe a duty of care to persons who come on to their property. . (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165, 166 and 169).”

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

The common law duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) and refined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). Any party including public authorities may owe a duty of care to another if particular conditions are fulfilled. The Caparo conditions apply to public bodies in respect of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on their actions.