Grant V Australian Knitting Mills Ltd And Donoghue V Stevenson (1932)

The elements of a negligence

The plaintiff must establish these five steps in damages for negligence:

1. Duty of Care:

• The risk of reasonable foreseeable- meaning that a reasonable person appreciates the risks and takes a practical steps to minimize likely adverse consequences see Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1933] and Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

• The loss or pain suffered by the plaintiff

• The nature of relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff

• The plaintiff’s vulnerability- An outraged gathering is helpless if he was not capable of figuring out how to shield himself from the reckless exhibition

• See Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9

2. The Breach of Duty:

• A reasonable person has a duty of care toward the other

Causation:

• To be recoverable from the defendant the losses must actually be caused by the negligent.

• Was the harm or a trouble achieved as an outcome of breach of duty of care?

• see Cork v Kirby Maclean [1952] 2 All ER 402 (CA)

4. Remoteness:

• The losses suffered must be caused by the negligent act and not to be remote

• The damage must not be a direct consequence of the negligent act, but must have also been reasonably foreseeable: see Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 709 and Metrolink Victoria Pty Ltd v Inglis [2009] VSCA 227 (VCA)

5. Damages:

• Plaintiff needs to prove that injury or damage she/he is suffering is result of defendant’s negligence.

Application

Negligence is a carelessness or lack of care which results in meeting the standards of behavior established by a law of protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. The questions arises by law whether Michelle owed a duty of care of to Rebecca? See Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 made clear that it doesn’t matter how negligent a person is, the manufacturer does not owe a duty of care to every single consumer. See Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. [1932] 50 CLR 387 (High Court); [1936] AC 85 (Privy

As Michelle neglected to take sensible consideration which brought about a mischance and Rebecca harmed. Rebecca must prove that the injury she got is a result of Michelle’s negligence.

Causation, to obtain damages, the plaintiff must establish that the negligence cause the damages. The beginning stage for any examination of true causation is the "but for" rule, see Cork v Kirby Maclean [1952] 2 All ER 402 (CA), is a decent power to utilize. If the negligence would not have happened, would the plaintiff have suffered injury? According to Road Traffic Act 1961 [see s 47H], it is an offense to drive any vehicle, after drinking/drugs. This can lead put others’ lives in danger. If Michelle drove safely, there would be no damage, injury or accident happened to Rebecca.

On the basis of above facts, it’s clear that this case comprises remoteness as there is no outward trouble in supporting that the injury suffered by Rebecca was a direct and reasonably foreseeable as a outcome of Michelle’s bearing. See Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd [1966] 2 All ER 709 and Metro link Victoria Pty Ltd v Inglis [2009] VSCA 227