The issue in this case is that weather MacTools Limited have breached the provisions of civil liability acts and common law principles of negligence.
Every state in Australia has its own civil liability act which deal with the tort of negligence. According to the legislation duty of care is imposed on any person whose activities can possibly cause injury to another person. The injury must have been caused because of the failure of such person to act as a reasonable person would have under similar circumstances. Common law principles of negligence and when find up by the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 AC 522. The manufacturer making beverage was declared to be liable for the harm caused to a person who consume the beverage buying it from a cafe. The case established that the manufacture is liable to any harm or injury cost to the users of the goods manufactured by him or her through the use of such goods.
Through this Landmark case one of the most significant concept which has been established was known as the neighbour principle. According to the rules of this principle and duty is imposed on a person to observe due care in relation to any person who can be injured possibly by their actions. The principal came to be known as duty of care.
In the case of Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane  QSC 103 it has been stated by the court that lack of proper framework within workplace for the protection of employees would ensure that the employer is liable for negligence if any harm is caused to the Employees.
As per the case of Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant 50 C. L. R. 387 (1935) negligence can only be established if the plaintiff beyond reasonable doubt can establish that the defendant had a duty of care towards them. In addition the defendant was not reasonable towards the precautions taken by him to prevent the harm caused the plaintiff. And lastly the plaintiff has to show that if the defendant would have been reasonable towards his or her functions the plaintiff would not have suffered any kind of harm which he did.
In most cases of negligence whether a person is liable to cause harm to another is determined by the court by applying the “but for” test which was provided by another Landmark case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital  1 QB 428.
A claim of negligence can however be defeated completely or partially so the application of the defence of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence has been defined by Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor  NSWCA 394 as the contribution which is made by the plaintiff himself towards the cause of harm. Therefore if a plaintiff even after reading that there is danger beyond the lines, does not take reasonable care and proceed beyond and suffer a injury because of some negligence on the part of the owner he would be liable for whole or partial contributory negligence depending upon the situation. In Australia the concept had recently been used in the case of Jackson vs McDonald’s Australia Limited 2014 NSWCA 62. In this case only 30% compensation has been provided to the plaintiff and the other 70% was adjusted by the court for the purpose of contributory negligence.
The section would analyse the above discussed laws and apply them to the present facts of the case so that an appropriate conclusion can be derived.
MacTools Limited sold a drill to Mulan. The drill had been further provided by Mulan to Arora for use. As discussed above in the landmark case of Donoghue vs Stevenson, manufacture has a duty of care towards anyone who uses its products. Therefore similar to the principles of that case MacTools Limited would also have a duty of care to Aurora even if they did not sell the drill directly to her.
Further it has been provided that Arora was injured significantly and lost her eyes as she used the drill for 10 minutes. When the drill was sold the by the manufacturer it contained instructions that while operating the drill the operator must use a set of goggles. However such instructions where not read by Mulan and further not provided by him to Arora. It has to be noted in this case that MaTools Limited well aware of the fact that if the drill is used for more than 5 minutes there is a very little chance that it makes explode and for the fear of suffering financial losses the company did not disclose such facts to the consumers and subjected them to the risk of being injured. Thus as they were the manufacturers and had a duty of care and were not reasonable while disposing their functions. In addition if such instructions had been provided before the drill would not have been used for more than 5 minutes by Arora and the accident could have been avoided. Thus MacTools Limited are liable for the tort of negligence.
In addition as there was a failure on the part of Mulan to read the instructions provided by the company of using a set of goggles while operating the machine which was provided to Aurora for use it can be done that there was contributory negligence on the part of Arora even if she did not knew about the instructions a reasonable man while operating a drill would have always used to Goggles for safety measures. Thus in this case the claim of negligence which would be made by Arora against Mac tools Limited would be decided by the court in accordance to the principles of contributory negligence so that a just and fair judgement can be delivered by the Court
Coming to the financial injury which was caused by Jessie as glass showpiece got damaged it can be a certain that duty of care only exists when a person can reasonably foresee a harm caused to another person. However in the circumstances it was impossible for any reasonable person to assume that if the drill malfunctioned it would hamper the electric line, which would cause the breaking of the glass resulting into losses. Thus, as there is no duty of care no claim for negligence can be made.
There is a liability on Metals Limited with respect to negligence however the case would be decided taking into consideration the provisions of contributory negligence to decide the damages.
Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane  QSC 103
Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant 50 C. L. R. 387 (1935).
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital  1 QB 428.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman  UKHL 2.
Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 25)
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 522
Jackson v McDonald's Australia Ltd  NSWCA 162
Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor  NSWCA 39