Case Study of Mactools Ltd-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Question: Discuss about the Case Study of Mactools Ltd. Answer: Issues: As per the facts of the case there are several issues that have arisen. Such issues area as follows: Whether MacTools Ltd is liable for the accident and the injury received by Aurora. Whether Aurora is entitled to receive compensation for the said damage. Whether MacTools Ltd is liable for negligence. Whether Jessie can bring claim against MacTools Ltd with regards to the damage she received. Legal Rules: As per the facts of the case the case is of Negligence. MacTools Ltd was negligent in its act and shall be liable under law of torts and Civil Liability Act of 2002. To prove that the company was liable for the act of negligence then the Plaintiff must fulfill the following essential elements of negligence (Martin, 2016). When one party acts in a careless manner and causes harm or injury to other, such person is said to have acted negligently. The doctrine of negligence is that principle of tort where a person who has acted carelessly which a prudent person would have not done in such circumstances is legally liable for the harm, injury or damage made to the other person. In the case of negligence the parties to the dispute may settle the dispute within them or may enter into litigation through filing a personal injury suit. Therefore, it can be said that a negligence is an act where a person has failed to take due or reasonable care which any other ordinary man would have taken in the such circumstance and causes harm or injury and is liable to pay damages (Higginson, 2015). Thus, to determine whether the person has acted negligently and the damage received by the other person for the negligently act, the essential elements of negligence must be fulfilled. The elements of negligence are as follows: Duty of care: The plaintiff who has charged the defendant for the act of negligence must prove that the defendant has the responsibility of reasonable care and the reasonable care must be towards the plaintiff. The defendant should have an obligation towards the plaintiff and acted with reasonable care. The plaintiff also needs to fulfill that as the defendant has failed to take due care towards the plaintiff which a reasonable man would have taken in such situation. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson1, the court has established the legal principle as to the case of negligence in determining whether the defendant owed duty of care towards the defendant. In test for the determination of the duty of care, the court must determine that the harm received by the plaintiff for the act of the defendant is reasonably foreseeable; there plaintiff and the defendant must be in a relationship of proximity (Stickley, 2016). In Australia Grant v Australian Knitting Mills is the landmark judgment on the development of the negligence law in Australia. In the given case, MacTools owes a duty of care towards Mulan who has bought the power drill, if the company would have taken reasonable care in making Mulan known to the facts that while working with the power drill Mulan should use a goggles (Cane Atiyah, 2013). Breach of duty: Next, the court will hope to see whether the respondent broke this obligation by doing (or not accomplishing something) that a "sensibly judicious individual" would do under comparable conditions. The expression "sensibly reasonable individual" alludes to a lawful standard that speaks to how the normal individual would dependably act in a specific circumstance. Factual Causation: For a litigant to be held, it must be demonstrated that the specific acts or exclusions were the reason for the misfortune or harm sustained. Although the idea sounds straightforward, the causation between one's breach of obligation and the mischief that outcomes to another can on occasion be extremely complicated. The fundamental test is to ask whether the damage would have happened 'but for', or without, the defendants breach for the obligation owed to the harmed party. In Australia, the High Court has held that the 'but for' test is not the select trial of causation since it cannot address a circumstance where there is more than one reason for damage. When 'but for' test is not fulfilled and the case is an excellent one, a realistic test ('Whether and Why' test) will be applied. Even more accurately, if a rupturing party substantially builds the danger of mischief to another, at that point the rupturing gathering can be sued to the estimation of damage that has been caused. Damages: The last component of a negligence case is damages. This component requires that the court have the capacity to repay the offended party for his or her damage - more often than not through financial pay for costs, for example, therapeutic care or property repair. Negligence is also guided by the provisions of Civil Liability Act 2002 of Australia. Te elements which proves the case of negligence is same that of the common law (Mitchell, 2014). Application: In the given case Mac Tools has the duty of reasonable care towards Mulan and the close neighbor of him. Therefore, it was the duty of MacTools to aware Mulan before using it. MacTools has also did not disclose the fact that if the power drill is used more than 5 min it can burst. Therefore, this act of the MacTools Ltd was an act of negligence. MacTools has conducted a breach of his duty towards Mulan. This is also prove that the element of factual causation where the injury received to Aurora was the direct result of the negligent act on the part of the MacTools Ltd. However, MacTools is not liable for the damage received by Jessie as the damage was not the direct result of the act of MacTools power drill. Conclusion: Therefore, MacTools shall be liable to pay damage as the consequence of the act of negligence. As per the analysis made above MacTools Ltd has acted negligently and thus shall be liable under the law of torts as well as the Civil Liability Act 2002 of the legislation of Australia. Bibliography: Martin, K. (2016). Topical matters pertaining to the tort of negligence-the attribution of blame.Brief,43(7), 38. Higginson, S. (2015). Global focus: Climate change litigation: Landmark dutch ruling raises questions for Australia.LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (15), 22. Stickley, A. P. (2016).Australian Torts Law. LexisNexis Butterworths. Cane, P., Atiyah, P. S. (2013).Atiyah's accidents, compensation and the law. Cambridge University Press. Simons, K. W. (2015). Victim Fault and Victim Strict Responsibility in Anglo-American Tort Law.Journal of Tort Law,8(1-2), 29-66. Owen, D. (2014).Products Liability Law, 3d (Hornbook Series). West Academic. Lamont, S., Stewart, C., Chiarella, M. (2016). Decision-making capacity and its relationship to a legally valid consent: ethical, legal and professional context.J Law Med,24, 371-386. Mitchell, P. (2014).A History of Tort Law 19001950(Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press.