Understanding Breach Of Duty Of Care And Negligence In Essendon Football Club Case Study

Overview of the Essendon Football Club Case Study

Question:

Discuss About The Program Administering Certain Supplements?

In the case study the Essendon Football Club has been held liable for the health issues of the participants in the Australian football league season. One of the footballers Nahin Meye has suffered health issues along with his three-year old daughter due to the supplement program which has been arranged by is in the Football Club. It is a case of negligence by the football club where they have failed to satisfy the duty of care and breach their duty towards their football players along with the Nathan and her three years old daughter. The breach of duty of care has been stated in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson where the plane team has gone for having a beer along with a friend for the defendant is providing the customer services by serving foods. When the defendant has served a beer bottle to the plant, she has found the compost Snail in the bottle which makes her feels ill due to having some beer. In this case, the plaintiff has claimed compensation due to the breach of duty of care by the defendant while he is serving the customers on duty. Therefore, the service provider has failed to satisfy the terms of duty of care and a breach of duty has occurred in this case. According to the toddler, the negligence establishes the terms where the reach of the duty of care occurs and meet damages to the innocent party. Due to the negligence, any injuries or loss of property or any damage would be offered by the person who fails to provide the duty of care and which the terms. The law of tort as provided the statutory fact for the negligence only establishes where duties of care have failed to perform and the breach has occurred.

A breach of duty of care has occurred due to the negligence in the case of Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012][1] where the court has found that the defendant has performed maid agency where the plaintiff has been damaged therefore while providing services to the plenty he has reached the duty of care.

While in a recent case D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017][2] the plaintiff has mentioned in the court that due to the breach of the duty of care where he suffered damages and injuries due to the negligence of the duty of care by the defendant. The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017[3]] is another case where due to the negligence the defendant has failed to satisfy the plaintiff with the duty of care where the beach has occurred. The plaintiff has claimed the compensation for the injuries the court has audited for the penalties for breach the duty of care. While in the case of Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] is one of the significant cases of breach of the duty of care where the plaintiff has suffered several injuries due to the negligence by the defendant on the workplace. While the defendant is on the duty of care he has failed to provide appropriate duty towards a disabled person. Therefore, the plaintiff who is disabled has got injuries by the defendant before the court has been authored to provide the compensation for the damages of the plaintiff due to the injuries[4].

The Concept of Breach of Duty of Care in Negligence Cases

According to the tort law when our duty of care has failed to provide according to the terms then the Civil liability Acts has made the provisions for the support person who has been injured or damaged of the property. Due to the beach of duty of care then it will help to provide to clean the compensation and take the legal precaution against the damage by the defendant. In the case of Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999][5] the Civil liability act has provided the legal protection and precaution against the negligence which has occurred due to the dissatisfied the terms of duty of care where the breach has occurred. When a person is on the providing the services, therefore it is the duty of them that they will provide every service of duty of care towards the other person who is supposed to have the duty of care. Therefore according to the case study, the football club has found liable for the breach of the duties and other health issues because they have arranged the supplement program and participation of the footballers where they have been affected. Due to the negligence of the Essendon Football Club, the footballers have suffered the loss of sponsorship, loss of reputation, loss of income and emotional distress where they have been affected by such damages and also make the effects in their career. Now it is important to establish the terms of dissatisfaction of duty of care for the Essendon Football Club have been found liable for such act of breach of duty of care.

Negligence is only identified when there is a breach duty of care of the defendant according to the law of tort. It is important to establish the facts of negligence where the defendant owned the duty of care towards plaintiff. It is defined when the exercise of acts has been failed due to the appropriate and ethical rules of specific circumstances then the law of tort has defined the term of negligence. The defendant must own the duty of care and if they got failed to provide such therefore it will make the negligence towards the plaintiff and must cause potential harm to the person or damage of any property. When the plaintiff has affected with any loss or any damage or any injuries due to the negligence by the defendant, then he has the right to claim the damage amount of the compensation due to the loss or injury by the negligence e of the defendant. It is also important to mention that the defendant is bound to pay the compensation if the plaintiff has sued him for the claimant of compensation.

Proving Breach of Duty of Care in Negligence Cases

The loss of damage can be identified as physical injury harm of private property or any psychiatric illness or the economic loss.

There are some essential terms of breach of care where the defendant is bound to do the duties and if the breach has a cause, then it will be caused by proximate causes and damages.

It is the ultimate terms in the law of torts where the negligence is caused due to the failure of such duty. Now it is important to establish the facts where the defendant must own the duty of care towards the plaintiff. A recognised and valid relation is needed to establish where the defendant is bound to follow such duty of care while he is serving the duty of care to the plaintiff. Now it is necessary that the defendant must determine every duty of care which is required to establish such terms. In the duty of care, it is necessary for the person who must serve the duties under some circumstances towards the plaintiff. Therefore when the negligent has establishes then the court was bound to establish the facts and relation of duty of care between the plaintiff and defendant[6].

As an example of duty of care is when the defendant is driving a truck, loaded with vegetables and if it has struck with a child then at that situation he owns the duty of care towards the child. Now it is important to take care of the child and a duty of care when that person has loaded the truck with vegetables. The duty of care is required for the person a reasonable duty of care. Here according to the terms of the duty of care, a relationship establishes between that person who owns the duty and the child who is standing near the truck may suffer any injury[7]. A reasonable duty is required to own the duty of care and the court will find the relationship between the child and the defendant. Here according to the scenario, the defendant is on his property where he has no knowledge about the child who is standing near the vegetable loaded truck and the child has trespass the property. Therefore if any injury or damage that was caused by the defendant, then the court must find the facts of relationship where it is important to prove the facts where the defendant has owned the duty of care or not towards that child[8].

Compensation for Negligence and Breach of Duty of Care

The breach of duty of care only occurs when the defendant has failed to satisfy the terms of the duty of care and the cause injury or damages due to the negligence by the defendant. Therefore the duty of care must be owned by the defendant where the breach has established. Most of the situation the duty of care is breached by the defendant where they have the knowledge of the negligence which is the substantial clause or risk or loss to the plaintiff. Therefore due to the failure of the duty of care the substantial risk has occurred and the loss has found which is the breach of care according to the law of tort[9].

McHale v Watson [1966][10] is one of the famous cares of negligence where the court has found that the defendant established a standard duty of care towards the plaintiff. It has been found that a nine years old child has been hurt forcefully by a 12 years old girl while they are playing in a park. Now due to the hurt, the child has been blinded by her one eye. In this case the court has found such facts that the child has been hurt forcefully, but she has no knowledge that it will make harms for the child which cause her blind. The court has also added the facts where they mentioned that the child is not cross the stage of development where she was on the duty of care[11].

• The cause, in fact is another term of negligence where it is necessary for the plaintiff that they must prove the duty of care which has been owned by the defendant. It has established the facts where the plaintiff is bound to define the fact that if the defendant is liable for the damages due to the involvement in the situation. Now according to the case scenario while the defendant is loading the truck which loaded with vegetables and the child has trespass in that property where the defendant has stopped his action due to the presence of the child. Now, it is an important fact that due to the instant action by the defendant to take precaution and not moving the vegetable loaded truck is not does any harm to the child
• The Proximate Cause is another term in the negligence where it makes the important terms which has caused due to the actual cause of injury or damages by the defendant to the plaintiff[12]. If it has been proved that the damage is occurred due to the damage and another scope of risks, then it will be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the liabilities of the defendant in the duty of care where the risk or loss has been placed. Therefore any harm or injury has occurred due to the action of the defendant then it is necessary that the plaintiff will only hold liable the defendant for that only clause of injuries or damages[13].
• Damages are important which has been occurred for the negligence by the defendant. The damage could be identified by the defendant where the damage could be an injury, loss, harm. If the defendant is found that due to the action of the defendant the breach of the duty of care has occurred then the pecuniary injury will be identified towards the plaintiff and it makes the cause of damage. Sometimes the court as found that the damage has occurred when by the defendant by mistakenly then the plaintiff is bound to prove the harm of the plaintiff.

The damage which has been in this case by the defendant towards the plaintiff can be affected as physical, economic or both which make the loss of personal injury or reputational damages which are the part of the negligence. Here it is important to prove such area of negligence where the defendant held liable for the damages and which cause due to the negligence of the duty or care.  In most of the cases, the damages have been claimed through the capital amount. Where the plaintiff found that due the negligence of the defendant he or she has suffered the loss which could be economic loss, then the plaintiff has the right to claim the compensation for the damages which have been caused by the defendant[14].

Now according to the scenario of the case study, Essendon Football Club has engaged a program of administering certain supplement to its professional athletes where the football club has been engaged in the world anti-doping authority’s requirements.  Now due to the failure of the authority of the football club, the players have been suffered the loss of sponsorships, loss of income, emotional distress and loss of reputation. Therefore due to the breach of the occupational health and safety laws in Victoria, the court has fined $200,000 as the compensation of the beach of Duty. Now, one of the players of them Nathan Howlett-Murray has claimed several allegations against the Essendon Football Club who has been found liable due to the health issue of him and her three years old daughter. Now he has claimed that the Essendon Football Club authorities have been breached their duty of care towards their players and he must provide the compensation where the damage has been done[15].

Conclusion

Therefore the conclusion has been identified in this case that the Essendon Football Club authorities have breached their duty which has caused them to provide the damages as a penalty to the plaintiff who has suffered the damages where Nathan Howlett-Murray and her daughter who have suffered from the health issues[16].

Reference

Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580.

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

Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.

Donoghue vs. Stevenson

Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review, 24(1), pp.34-62.

Greenfield, S., 2016. Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different Jurisdictions, Different Approaches?. Staps, (4), pp.87-96.

Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016. Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses (Vol. 1). California Torts.

McHALE  v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)

Stewart, P. and Stuhmcke, A., 2014. High Court Negligence Cases 2000–10.

Stokes v House With No Steps [2016]

Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182

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

Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

[1] Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182

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

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

[4] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

[5] Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)

[6] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

[7] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

[8] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

[9] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

[10] McHALE  v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199

[11] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

[12] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

[13] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

[14] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity

[15] Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

[16] Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity