Business and Corporation Law for Caparo Industries -myassignmenthelp

Question: Write about theBusiness and Corporation Law for Caparo Industries. Answer: Issue Is Mac Tools Ltd liable for committing negligence? Is Aurora liable for committing contributory negligence? Is Jessie negligent for the broken glass vase? Law Negligence The negligence law was established in the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] that stated that in order to establish a claim for negligence; the claimant must establish the following elements: Duty of Care In order to establish that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the defendant and is responsible for personal injury, the test of proximity is applied. It states that defendant must be so close to the plaintiff that his actions or omissions would reasonably cause damage to the plaintiff as was observed in Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990]. Breach of the Duty In order to determine whether the defendant has caused breach of the duty, the court shall apply the objective test explained in Vaughan v Menlove [1837]. The test determines the foreseeability of the risk where the defendant must make efforts to avert the risks. The action of the defendant to avoid such risks shall be such that any reasonable person would take such steps to avoid the same risks (Graham, 2016). Breach of duty resulted in damages Whether the damages were caused due to the breach of the duty is usually determined by the courts using the But for test that was established in the Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital [1969]. The but for test inquires But for the act of the defendant, would the harm have taken place? In case there are two parties who are responsible for causing damages for their negligent acts and where their individual acts would have individually caused damages, both such parties shall be liable for negligence, as each of the causes shall be considered as considerable factor. Damage was foreseeable and not remote Further, the defendant shall be liable if the damages suffered by the plaintiff were foreseeable by the defendant and the damage was the direct result of the breach of duty of care defendant. Contributory negligence If the plaintiff voluntarily pays no attention to basic rules or warnings and fails to ensure his/her own safety, the plaintiff is said to be partly liable for the damages caused to him/her. However, contributory negligence cannot be used as a defense unless the plaintiff has voluntarily assumed the risk, which any reasonable person would have voided under the same circumstances. Workplace Safety Practice The Work Health Safety practice requires the workers to use any personal protective equipment while working and not willfully themselves or others. Employees must exercise duty of care to guard against any economic loss in performing their work otherwise, they shall be liable in the event of a loss as was held in Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd [1964]. Application In the given scenario, MacTools Ltd is liable for negligence and Aurora is liable for contributory negligence. This is evident from the fact that Mac Tools Ltd was aware of the fact that if the drill is used for more than 5 minutes, there is a 1% chance it may result in short circuit and cause injury or damage to the user. However, the company did not rectify the defect, which a reasonable person would, due to huge expenses. As was held in Donoghues case, any person whose actions or omission would directly cause damage to other person owes duty of care towards the person. Here, Aurora was the consumer of the drill sold by Mac Tool Ltd , hence, the company breached its duty of care causing damage to Aurora and Jessie due to the over usage of the drill and power cut due to the short circuit defect. The damage caused must be a direct result of the breach of the defendants duty. Mac Tool Ltd could reasonable foresee that the defect in the drill would result in short circuit yet it did not mae attempt to avert the risk. While Mulan lent the power drill to Aurora with the instructions, which included the safety warnings that required the users to wear protective goggles, aurora did not read the instructions, used it for 10 minutes, and lost her eye. Here, Aurora voluntarily refused to read the safety warnings and assumed the risk which any reasonable person would have avoided. Here if the but-for test is applied it can be observed that even if Mac Tool mentioned about the short circuit warning, Aurora would have suffered the injuries as she voluntarily did not read the instructions which required her to wear protective goggles for eye safety. Jessie is personally liable for the economic loss to her employer as she should have exercised duty of care and should have used personal property equipment while making the glass, as she is personally responsible to guard against any economic loss as held in Hellers case. Conclusion Mac Tool Ltd is liable for negligence and Aurora is responsible for contributory negligence. Jessie is liable for breaching duty of care while making the glass vase. References Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Graham, J. C. (2016). Proof of Negligence.Florida Torts,1. Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. Vaughan v Menlove [1837] 3 Bing NC 467