Negligence Case Study

Question 1:
The first thing that needs to be done is to establish a duty of care.

Negligence claims can be brought against people who owe you a duty of care. It then comes down to who did BMP or WWE owe a duty of care to before the incident occurred.’
Neighbour principle founded by donoouge vs stevenson

There are many reasons to suggest that BMP was legally liable to all damages that erected following the open-cut fire. The evidence of their negligence which made them liable was the documentation stating that shortcuts in fire safety equipment to save in costs. This was stated as being ‘necessary’ due to lack of income coming from the mine.
In the case Burnie Port Authority vs. General Jones, Jones sued the Port Authority for negligence when conflagration destroyed his produce. Burnie Port Authority took action to start plan two of their proposed development. General Jones had three cool rooms worth of frozen vegetables of which he owned which was kept stored in plan one of the Port Authorities development. For the construction of stage two there wasn’t a main contractor appointed. This led to the improper maintenance of stage two which caused the conflagration when welding sparks caught hold of stored flammable insulation. The flame carried through to the original stage one of the development which included the destruction of the three cool rooms belonging to General Jones.
This case represents how BMP could be held liable for negligence to someone who comes after them for damages done. The main reasoning for this is the reduction of safety equipment in one section of the mine making them vulnerable to any fire related issues that could potentially occur. The fact that the fire did erupt causing conflagration of the mine and...

... middle of paper ...

... bride even with signs up, and they knew about it made them liable to any injuries that were to take place. The final appeal was successful and the council lost the case in the high court.

Page 41 torts. Management response

How to deal with tort situations

"it was settled law that a principal may incur liability for either the tortious acts of an independent contractor that it has directly authorised, for failure to co-ordinate the activities of independent contractors or for breach of specific duties as an occupier. However, it rejected that Leighton owed a duty to Fox to take reasonable care to prevent him suffering injury on the site as a result of the negligent conduct of Stewart.'

Use woolcock street investments case

Workers being affected can be referenced to the Caltex via ripple effect

Talk abuot each damage and who they can claim from what resource.