Legal Principle Of Negligence And Its Application In The Given Scenario Essay.

The Legal Principles of Negligence

Keith and Ruth are the two parties who are involved in the case. It is because of Keith’s negligent actions that damages are suffered by Ruth. So, the plaintiff/aggrieved in the given scenario is Ruth and the defendant/culprit is Keith. Ruth should bring legal proceedings against Keith for his negligent actions. In order to prove that Keith is negligent, Ruth must prove that Keith is under legal duty to provide safeguard to Ruth and this duty is adversely performed by him resulting in breech and such adversity has caused loss to Ruth. So, Keith is negligent in his actions.

Thus, the legal principle that governs that law of negligence is applied herein under.

The law of torts is a legal principle which holds the wrongdoer liable for his wrongful actions and which has caused harm to the claimant. The law of negligence is also developed on the same guiding principle wherein the claimant is provided with remedies for the loss that is caused to him by the negligent actions of the wrongful actions. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Lord Atkin has laid down that that every manufacturer is under legal duty to provide protection to his consumers before providing with any consumer product and if because of such consumer product any consumer is injured then the manufacture can be held liable under the law of negligence. (Robertson & Tilbury  , 2016)

But, Lord Atkin has laid down few legal principles that govern the law o negligence. The same are:

Duty of care is the paramount ingredient to prove negligence on the part of the wrongdoer. This duty implies that the wrongdoer should not harm any claimant with his acts/omission. It is his duty to conduct his acts/omission so as no kind of harm, whether physical or mental, should be incurred upon the claimant. But, there are two basic principles which must be fulfilled to hold the wrongdoer under the duty of care, that is, (Hocking, 1999)

i. The wrongdoer and the claimant must be neighbours of each other. Neighbour means that the acts of the wrongdoer will affect the claimant directly and is held in Jaensch v Coffey[1984]. In order to consider the wrongdoer and the claimant neighbours of each other it is necessary that the claimant must suffer negative impact from the acts/omissions of the wrongdoer and is held in Gala v Preston (1991)

ii. That the impact which may fall upon the claimant by the acts/omissions of the wrongdoer should be reasonably foreseeable by the wrongdoer. Reasonable forseeability means what is expected from a normal prudent man in the similar situation and is held in McLoughlin v O'Brian[1983]. Thus, if the wrongdoer can foresee that because of his act/omission some kind of injury can be faced by the claimant then he must forbid himself from doing such act/omission.

The Elements of Negligence

The presence of neighbourhood principle and the reasonable forseeability principle together makes the wrongdoer accountable to carry out his act/omission with all care and precautionary measures.

Breach of duty of care is the second paramount element to prove negligence. Breach occurs when the wrongdoer is not able to perform his duty of care adequately had is held in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015). Every situation requires different level of care and the wrongdoer must perform his duties so that they fit in the desire level of care. However, when the wrongdoers are not able to cope up with the desired level of care then the duty of care is considered to be violated by the wrongdoer. For instance, a duty of care that is required from a doctor is very high when compared with a normal human. Also, the degree of risk when the claimants are children or old people is high comparing with claimants who are normal adults and thus the duty of care is high in the previous case when compared with the later and is held in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957). Thus, it is the degree or risk, danger, effects, age of claimant, literacy of claimant etc which plays prime role in defining the standard of care in any given situation. (Lee, 2016)

The resultant damages are the third most important ingredient that must be present in order to hold any wrongdoer liable for negligence. The third element states that when the wrongdoer is in violation of his duty of care, then, because of such breach of duty, the claimant should have suffered some damage and is held in Chester v Waverley Corporation (1939). The damage is consider to be caused by the wrongdoer provided the damage is because of the breach of duty of care by the wrongdoer, that is, it is because of the act/omission of the wrongdoer that has resulted in causing damage to the claimant and is held in Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002). Also, the loss that is caused to the claimant is reasonably foreseeable by the wrongdoer like a normal prudent man in the like situation and is held in Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstedt” (1976).  (Lawvision, 2008)

Thus, all the three elements of negligence will make the wrongdoer liable under the law of negligence and must pay compensational and damages to the claimant for the losses that are suffered by him.

Application of Negligence in the Given Scenario

However, even if the defendant is held to be negligent in his actions, still law has laid down some defence which can be availed by the defendant in order to protect his interest. One such defence is the defence of contributor negligence.

As per the law of contributory negligence of the defendant can prove that the loss that is caused to the claimant is not only because of the negligent actions of the defendant but the loss that is caused to the claimant is also because claimant herself was involved in some kind of wrongful action which is also the reason for the injuries that are sustained by the claimant, then, the wrongdoer can rely on the defence of contributory negligence. The liability of the wrongdoer is sthen reduced to the extend the claimant is negligent in his actions and is held in Joslyn v Berryman [2003].( Hodgson, 2016)

All the three elements, that is, duty of care, breach of duty of care and damages along with the defense of contributory negligence is now applied to the facts of the given case.

The facts establish that Ruth owns a house and intends to replace his staircase as the same is not in a very good condition. In order to do so he appoints a handyman, Keith, who is not a qualified carpenter but has declared so in the local Buderim Bugle.

From the states facts it is crystal clear that When Keith is performing his task of the replacement of the star case then he must do because he has a duty of care to be performed under the law of negligence.

This is because Keith and Ruth are neighbors of each other, which is the first essential to prove duty of care upon Keith. When Keith will repair the stair case of Ruth, then, it will have a direct impact upon Ruth because if by chance the replacement is faulty then it will certainly hamper Ruth and if it is perfect then it will provide a benefit to Ruth. So, directly or indirectly, there is impact of Keith work on Ruth. So, both are neighbors of each other as rightly held in Jaensch v Coffey [1984]. 

Also, when Keith is performing his act of replacement of the staircase then at that time any normal prudent man can reasonably foresee the impact of such replacement if such replacement is not carried out effectively by Keith. Thus, Keith can reasonably foresee the impact of the staircase if not replaced in a careful manner. Keith can predict that Ruth may face injuries by falling from the faulty staircase and is has a duty of reasonably foreseeability as rightly held in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983].

Conclusion

Thus, Keith and Ruth both are neighbors of each other and Keith can reasonably foresee the impact of his acts upon Ruth.

Thus, Keith has a duty of care upon him and he must perform his tasks of replacement of staircase in such manner so that no injury is caused to Ruth.

However, Keith was not able to comply with his duty of care that is expected from him. When the staircase is replaced by him, then, he did not use a hardwood piece for the re-building of the staircase rather Keith used a leftover piece for the repairmen. It is submitted that for the repairing of the staircase the ingredient that is used by Keith is not appropriate and he fall short of the standard of care that is expected from him in the given situation as rightly held in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015). The left over that is used by Keith is not appropriate for the staircase and fall short of the risk that might take place because of such leftover piece. The degree that is associated is high and Keith has not considered the same when the replacement was done. This is because when after several weeks of replacement and on the occurrence of heavy rain, the staircase collapsed. So, the adequate that is sought from Keith is not performed by him.

Thus, the duty of care is not perfectly cater by Keith which has resulted in breach of duty of care by him.

Now, when the replacement was done then the same was not adequately because when after several weeks and because of heavy rain, the staircase collapsed. Because of the damage of the staircase, Ruth suffered serious injuries when he falls from the faulty staircase.

Thus, the breach of duty of care by Keith has resulted in causing harm to Ruth. The harm is because of the collapse of the staircase and such damage can be reasonably predictable by a normal prudent man in the like situation as rightly held in Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002). Thus, there is presence of causation and reasonably forseeability when the damages are caused to Ruth.

But, Keith will be liable for the damages that are caused to Ruth because of his negligent actions, that is, Keith can be held answerable for the damages and for the losses that are caused to Ruth as he was not able to continue his employment or two months. But, Keith is not liable to pay for the loss sustain by Ruth for the next 12 months which is caused to him because devote her time to unpaid charity work before seeking alternative employment.  This loss is not because of the negligent actions of Keith and thus Keith is not answerback for the same.

So, Keith was under duty of care which was not provided by him resulting in breach of duty of care and because of such breach of duty of care Ruth has suffered damages. So all the elements of the law of negligence are comply with and Keith can be held negligent in his actions.

So, Keith is surely negligent in his actions.

But, Keith can protect himself and can prove that when the damage is caused to Ruth, then, at that time, Ruth was walking down the staircase and was carrying several feeding dishes because of which she is not able to view that the staircase upon which she is walking has collapsed. Keith can prove that she was carrying so many dished that her view becomes obscure and which is also one of the reasons for the fall of Ruth and because of which injuries are sustained by her. Thus the loss that is caused to Ruth is also because of her one fault. So, Keith can rely on the defense of contributory negligence and can mitigate his damages in law.

So, Keith is negligent in his actions because of his breach damage are sustained by Ruth but Keith can prove contributory negligence on the part of Ruth and can mitigate his liabilities. 

Reference List

Books/Articles/Journals

Hocking, B (1999) Liability for Negligent Words, Federation Press.

Hodgson, D (2016) The Law of Intervening Causation, Routledge.

Robertson & Tilbury  (2016) Divergences in Private Law, Bloomsbury Publishing.

Case laws

Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002)

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957).

Chester v Waverley Corporation (1939).

Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstedt” (1976)

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).

Gala v Preston (1991).

Jaensch v Coffey [1984].

Joslyn v Berryman [2003] 

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015).

McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 

Law vision (2008) The law of negligence (Online). Available at:

https://www.lawvision.com.au/uploads/PDFs/Tort%20Law%20.pdf. (Accessed on 23rd May 2017).

Lee, A (2016) Bolam’ to ‘Montgomery’ is result of evolutionary change of medical practice towards ‘patient-centred care’ (Online). Available at: https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2016/07/27/postgradmedj-2016-134236.full. (Accessed on 23rd May 2017).