Analysis Of Tort Of Negligence In The Common Law

Question 1

Step 1: The Area of Law

The area of law that is commonly related to this case is known as Tort of Negligence in the common law. This question is done to known whether there is any liability on Warren Engineering Services Pty Ltd has to Ruth Mining Operation and to identify the presence element of negligence between Warren Engineering Services Pty Ltd and Ruth Mining Operation.

Step 2: Principles of Law

Tort of Negligence

Negligence is said to be a failure of a responsible person who is in charge to guarantee the responsibility of care is carried out which can be resulted is another person’s injuries or damages. The word tort simply means wrong which defines liability for cost related to injuries or damages or financial loss or property damages which can be due to the lack of carelessness of the defendant towards the plaintiff. In usual cases the defendant has to be proved that he/she has acted intentionally and there should be an actual damage or injury due to their action. In order to prove that the defendant has liability towards the plaintiff, the three main elements in the “Tort of Negligence” should be presented: duty of care, breach of duty and damages that have been done.

Duty of care

In tort law, duty of care is state that the duty is a legal obligation which is forced on an individual requiring them

In this case, the high court has discuss and state that the ‘but for’ must be applied with “common sense”. The drunken plaintiff drove and collided with the defendant who had park his truck illegally while unloading his goods from the truck. Based on this case both parties here were at fault. However the incident was taken into action with common sense. The court claimed that, causation is due to both the plaintiff and defendant, thus it was said that the defendant was allocated with 30% of fault while the drunken plaintiff was allocated with 70% of