Engineering Law And Negligence In The Case Of Sebastian Surtees Performance

Discuss about the Engineering Law for Sebastian Surtees Performance.

According to the case study the issue has been arises whether Clay can claim the damages which has been occurred in his building workshop due to the negligence by the Sebastian Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd or not?

Negligence is a part of tort law which has been exercise due to the failure of appropriate for Ethical care under some specified circumstances. Due to the negligence a loss of property could be occur by the person who is liable for such act and it covers the physical laws or any economic laws also. It has mainly four parts which are the duty of care, breach of the duty, causation and remoteness.

Duty of care is one of the important parts of negligence. When a negligence has establishes it is necessary that our duty of care should exist between the parties where the defendant must owned the duty of care towards the plaintiff. In the famous case the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] the duty of care has been found on the basis of specific circumstances where the defendant on the duty of care which make proximate relationship towards the plaintiff. In the case of Balfour v. Attorney General [1991] the court has been found that proximity cause and policy consideration in the duty of care has been found in this case where the relation has been established between the plaintiff and defendant where the duty of care has been owned.

The breach of duty of care is occurring when the defendant has failed to exercise the terms of duty of care towards the plaintiff. Therefore it is important that the standard of care should be establishes where it defines the reasonable cause of the position of the defendant. It is not necessary to show a loss to find the breach of duty of care when it has occurred towards the plaintiff. However due to the breach of care risk for injury has occur towards the plaintiff where it is reasonably foreseeable and the reasonableness is occurs due to the responsibility of the defendant. In the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] case the court has been found that the breach of Duty has been caused by the defendant while he served a beer bottle towards the plaintiff which has a decomposed snail and makes the plaintiff a mental shock. In the case of Consultants Group International v John Worman Ltd (1987) negligence has been found due to the beach of care where the plaintiff has found that architect was liable for the faulty design. In the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] where defendant is the Council of the company where they breach their duty of care towards a disable man which cause a serious injury to the plaintiff in his both eyes. Here the defendant has owned a standard duty of care towards the plaintiff but he failed to fulfill the duties. The breach of the duty of care also found in these recent cases also which are Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012], D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017], The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] and Stokes v House With No Steps [2016].

Rules

The third element is causation where it is important to show that due to the breach of Duty a loss has caused to the plaintiff. In the case of Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. National Mutual Life Nominees (1991) has came to the court where it has been found that damage has been occurred due to the negligence of duty of care which cause injury to the plaintiff. In the case of Corke v.Kirby McLane Limited [1952] the ‘but for test’ has been applied where the court has mentioned that the damage may not have occur if that particular fault has not applied by the defendant and due to the fault that damage has been occur. In the case of Yates v Jones (1990) the causation has been found when a young woman was injured by a drunk driver. Therefore the loss of the injury has occurred only for the drunk driver due to his heroin addiction and the ‘but for test’ has applied in this case. Another case March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1990) the ‘but for test’ has been applied and interpreted with the common sense. In this case the plaintiff has met with serious injury due to the truck driver who is the defendant in this case.

The fourth element is the remoteness which defines the remoteness of the damages. In the remoteness the court has tried to find out where the defendant is liable for all the losses which have been caused due to the breach of duty of care. In the case of Tankship Limited v. Morts Dock Limited [1967] the court has been found the defendant is liable for all the losses of  kind reasonably foreseeable which has failed to meet the standard of care towards the plaintiff.

The defenses are in negligence only possible in two ways. Those are contributory negligence where both the plaintiff and defendant are liable for the damages. In the case of Connors v The WAGR Commission (1992) it has been found that young boy has playing on the railway track and injured by a train therefore both the plaintiff and defendant responsible for such injuries. In Ingram v Britten [1994] the plaintiff has been injured buy a tractor which has been owned by the defendant and due to the recklessly driving of the tractor and he hit a tree and got injury. Therefore the court has mentioned about the contributory negligence in this case for both the defendant and plaintiff got the responsibility for the injury. In another case Bains Harding Construction & Roofing (Aust) Pty Ltd v McCredie Richmond & Partners Pty Ltd (1988) the plaintiff has found in the contributory negligence where the defendant also take part in such responsibility of the negligence.

Duty of Care

The another defense in negligence is voluntary assumption of risk which defines where plaintiff has fully and freely has related and related with the risk which caused by the defendants contact where the defendant can be relieved of legal liability for the conduct. Therefore the plaintiff is also part of the damages in the voluntary assumption of risk. However it is very rarely found in the negligent cases. In the case of Morris v Murray [1990] the Court has found that the plaintiff was a suffered with the injuries but he was not entitled to any compensation for such risk which has been cause by the defendant as he was known to the risks.

In another case Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948) it was found in an accident and suffered injuries where plaintiff has knowledge about the driver who is drunk. Therefore again the court has not entitled for any compensation for the plaintiff for such injuries.

Therefore according to the law of tort when are duty of care has failed to exercise according to the terms therefore the beach has occurred by the defendant which cause damages like injuries or any monetary loss. The Civil liability act has been provided such support to the plaintiff who is suffering for the injury or the damages of his property or bodily injury. It provides the compensation and helps to take legal precaution against the damages by the defendant which has caused due to the breach of duty of care. In the case of Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999) the court has provided the legal protection and precaution against the negligence of duty of care to the plaintiff which has been occurs due to the dissatisfaction of the terms of standard of care by the defendant. It is necessary that when a person is involving in providing a services to the other person therefore that person owned the duty of care towards the others person with proper care and diligence. When such terms has fails to satisfied then a breach of duty of care has occur which cause the damages which maybe bodily injury or any monetary damages.

In this case it has been found that due to the failure of the duty of care of the employees of Sebastian Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd has caused to the neighbor mechanical engineering workshop which has been owned by Clay Hawthorne has suffered a severe damage in his office it may not cause the bodily injury but the monetary damages.

Breach of Duty of Care

Negligence is the area of tort law which only identified when a breach of duty of care has occurred by the defendant. According to the law of tort in the negligence it is important to establish the terms where a defendant must owned the duty of care to the plaintiff. It has also stated that when application of such laws and terms has been failed for the appropriate and ethical rules of specific circumstances then it will define the term negligence in the law of tort. Therefore when the defendant fail to act according to the appropriate unethical rules of specific circumstances while he owned the duty of care a breach has occurred by the defendant which made for negligence towards the plaintiff. Due to the breach of duty of care the plaintiff could be cause potential harm which may bodily injury or damages or loss which may include the economic loss also. According to the negligence when the plaintiff is suffered and affected by any of the damages or loss or injuries due to the breach of duty of care by the defendant therefore the defendant is bound to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. It is the right of the plaintiff that he can claim the damages for the loss or injuries which has been caused due to the negligence by the defendant.

According to the case study the fact of the case is Sebastian Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd has been operated their business from last 4 years where they work on the maintenance and performance up gradation of the motorcycles in the workshop. This company is very safety conscious and never wishes to expose his employees or customers to unnecessary risk. Recently the company has installed sophisticated Diagnostic machine which help to maintenance in the motorcycle engines. However one day one of the technician has left the Diagnostic machine without switching off which cause overheat off the machine and causes the fire in the workshop. Therefore due to the negligence of the technician of that company the workshop has extensive damage where machinery customer motorcycle and components are all damaged and unfortunately the workshop was being too dangerous to be repaired and need to be demolished.

Due to the Fire spread to the neighboring area another mechanical engineering workshop which was owned by Clay Hawthorne is also damaged on the front office engine building workshop and a company vehicle which was parked inside the premises. This damage has caused him $475000. Clay recently involved with stand alone event in New Zealand where he will earned $15000 which will not include in his airfare and other expenses which has been paid for by the Motor Sports team. Therefore as he faced with huge monetary damages due to the fire of neighbor Surtees workshop. Now he wants to claim the damage amount from them.

Causation

According to the case facts it has found that the damage has been caused due to the negligence by the employee of the Surtees workshop. When someone suffers loss which caused by the other’s negligence therefore he has right to sue for damages to compensate for their loss. It may include physical harm, damage to property, psychiatric illness or economic loss. In this case the plaintiff has suffered with huge amount of economic loss.

Negligence has cause by the duty of care which of the duty causation and remoteness. The duty of case is defined when the defendant has owned the duty to the plaintiff and must exercise the reasonable care towards him.  It should establish a proper relation between the plaintiff and defendant. It is the legal liability of the defendant where he must be responsible towards the plaintiff while exercising the duty of care. According to the case facts the Sebastian Surtees Performance Motorcycles Pty Ltd must owned the duty of care towards their neighbor mechanical engineering workshop. It is the duty of the company that they must took care of all equipment in their workshop which are using for their own benefits and must not cause any damage to others by that equipment.

According to the second essential terms of negligence the breach of duty of care has defined when the defendant owned the duty towards the plaintiff but failed to exercise such duties. Then it will cause the breach of the duty of the care. As per the case study the employee of Surtees workshop has failed to exercise their duties while the employee has forgot to switch off one of the mechanical Diagnostic machine which cause fire and make damages to the neighbor company also. However the damage has been caused by the employee of the workshop but here the company is directly liable for such acts which cause damage to the plaintiff. When the Fire and Emergency Services has investigate the situation they found that due to the overheating of the Diagnostic machine it has caused the fire which not only damage the companies workshop but also the fire has spread towards the neighboring mechanical engineering workshop. It is clear that the damage has been cause due to the breach of the duty of care by the company.

According to the third element the causation of damage has occurred due to the breach of the duty which makes the economic loss to the plaintiff. It is important to prove the actual cause of the breach of duty of care. According to the ‘but for test’ in this case fact it has already found that if the employee of Surtees workshop not failed to switch off the Diagnostic machine then the fire will not caused in that workshop. Therefore it has been proved that the Fire has only occurred for the overheating of the Diagnostic machine due to the failure of the duty of care for left the machine without switching off it. If the fire has not spread to the neighboring mechanical engineering workshop then Clay will never cause any damages in his workshop. Therefore the area of causation has been found.

Remoteness

The fourth element which is remoteness of the damages which define that the defendant is liable for all the damages which have been caused due to the breach of duty of care. As per the above discussion of the duty of care, breach of Duty and causation of the damage has already proved that the Surtees workshop is liable for such damages. They failed to fulfill the terms of duty of care which cause the Fire and make a huge economic loss to the plaintiff. Defendant is liable for all the losses of the reasonably foreseeable which has failed to meet the standard of care towards the plaintiff.

The Civil liability act has provided search legislations where the plaintiff can claim for the damages or loss which he has suffered by the defendant. As per the case study Clay has suffered the damages of $475000 which has been caused due to the breach of duty of care by the Surtees workshop.

Conclusion

As per the case fact the damages of the plaintiff have been found due to the failure of duty of care by the Surtees workshop and breach the terms. Therefore due to the negligence the plaintiff has suffered with the damages of $475000. Now he has right to claim the damage amounts according to the Civil liability act and the defendant is bound to pay the damage amounts as they are liable for the damages of his neighboring mechanical engineering workshop due to the breach of duty of care.

Reference

Bains Harding Construction & Roofing (Aust) Pty Ltd v McCredie Richmond & Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 13 NSWLR 437

Balfour v. Attorney General [1991] 519

Connors v The WAGR Commission (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-187

Consultants Group International v John Worman Ltd (1987) 9 Con LR 46

Corke v.Kirby McLane Limited [1952] 2 All ER 402

D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017]

Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. National Mutual Life Nominees (1991) 5 NZCLC 67,418

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Ingram v Britten [1994] ATR 81

Insurance Commissioner v Joyce (1948) 77 CLR 39

March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 506

Morris v Murray [1990] 3 All ER 801

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)

Stokes v House With No Steps [2016]

Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182

Tankship Limited v. Morts Dock Limited [1967] 1 AC 617

  The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017]

Yates v Jones (1990) ATR 81