Element of Negligence are Duty of Care

Question: What about any defences and if they relevent or not and do you think that the case with Julie could be considered by the court to be too remote consider case law. Answer: Negligence The tort of negligence arises when a person does something, which a reasonable man under similar circumstances would not do, or omits to do something, which a reasonable man under similar circumstances would do, and such commission or omission results in the damage to some other person (LII / Legal Information Institute 2016). Essentials of Negligence The essentials of the tort of negligence are as follows: The defendant must have a duty of care towards the plaintiff. The defendant must have breached that duty. The breach must have resulted in some damage to the plaintiff. Facts of the instant problem The Company, Oleocampo, is one of the leading producers of fine quality olive oil in the region of Koala Island. The Company supplies olive oil to various food producers and is considered to be the pride of Koala Island. The celebrity chefs use Olecampos olive oil in their restaurants and television shows. George Michael is the owner of the company and he has olive groves in a region in Koala Island. Andrew Ridgeley owns a farm, which is situated, just adjacent to Michaels olive groves. He does periodical aerial spraying on his farm. One day his new pilot, by mistake, sprays chemical pesticides on Michaels olive groves. This had a devastating effect on the olive groves and the Company fails to produce the fine quality olive oil for an entire year. The Company lays off 25% of its staff in order to minimise its cost. As a result, Julie, who was an employee of the Company, loses her job and is unable to repay her mortgage amount. Not only that, Wyatt Marlston, a celebrity chef, who runs a famous cooking show on television and is one of the prime customers of Oleacampo, suffers a heart attack and is admitted to ICU of Royal Adelaide Hospital. Upon seeing him in ICU, his wife, Maggie Marlston suffers trauma. Issues: Whether Oleocampo and Julie have a right to sue Ridgeley for negligence or not? Whether Maggie, in a suit of negligence, will be successful in claiming compensation from Ridgeley due to her suffering from psychological trauma or not? Issue 1 (Advice to Oleocampo and Julie) Application of the elements of negligence Duty of care Ridgeley undoubtedly owes a duty of care to the adjacent olive groves of Oleocampo. The olive groves are the main source of production of the finest olive oil for the Company. The right of the Company over its property is a right in rem. Every right has a correlative duty and the world at large has a duty not to interfere with the possession of the Companys property. In the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932), a snail was found in a ginger beer bottle. The consumption of the same caused damage to the plaintiff. The manufacturer of beer bottle was held guilty of negligence, as the manufacturer had breached the duty of care to the consumers, which resulted in damage to the plaintiff (French 2012). Breach of duty The pilot employed by Ridgeley in his farm applied chemical pesticide to the olive groves of Oleocampo. The pilot was a new one and was not given proper instruction to take care of the adjacent property. He was not informed about the exact area in which he needed to do the spraying. Ridgeley failed to follow the standard of care, which was required to be followed. Thus, the act of aerial spraying by Ridgeleys farm on the Companys olive groves resulted in a breach of duty. In Caparo Industries Plc vs. Dickman (1990) case,a test was laid down so as to establish the liability of the wrongdoer (Randell 2014). The test is known as Capro test under which a claimant has to establish: That a reasonable man could have foreseen the damage There existed a relationship of proximity The duty of care could be imposed fairly and reasonably. All the requirements in the Capro test have been fulfilled in the instant problem and Ridgeley has done a breach of duty. Damage resulting from breach of duty The damage, which resulted from the breach of duty, is plentiful. The immediate damage, which occurred, is the deterioration of the equality of olive oil that the Company used to produce and for which the Company was considered the pride of Koala Island. The Company, thereafter, had to reduce its staff and consequently Julie lost her job and failed to make her mortgage repayments. The celebrity chef suffered from a heart attack and his wife, Maggie went through trauma. All these are the damage caused because of the breach of duty by Ridgeleys farm. In Donoghue case, the plaintiff suffered damage due to the consumption of the beer and therefore was entitled to recover damages from the defendant (Dobson 2015). In the instant problem, all the requirements of negligence have been fulfilled and both Oleocampo and Julie have suffered proximate damage and therefore have the right to sue Ridgeley for negligence. Issue 2 (Advice to Maggie) Proximate and Remote damage A person is entitled to recover damages only for the proximate damage caused by the negligent act and not for any remote damage, which could not be foreseen by a reasonable man. In Wagon Mound (1961) case, the defendants ship was taking fuel from the Sydney Port. Some 600 feet away there was a Morts Dock Company, which did repairing and welding work. Due to the negligence of the defendants servants, oil was spilt on the water, it was carried with the water until it reached the Morts Dock Company, where it ignited with the cotton waste, and a fire broke out immediately and resulted in damage to the Morts Dock Company (Ayers 2013). In this case, the Court held that the defendant could not be held liable for any damage, which could not be reasonably foreseen by a prudent person under similar circumstance (Zipursky 2012). In the instant problem, the harm or damage, which Maggie Marlston suffered, is too remote a damage and could not have been reasonably foreseen. For such damage, Ridgeley cannot be held liable and Maggie would fail in an action to claim compensation for the same. References Ayers, A.B., 2013.A Student's Guide to Law School: What Counts, what Helps, and what Matters. University of Chicago Press. Dobson, E., 2015. Negligence.Legaldate,27(1), p.4. French, M.P., 2012. Donoghue v Stevenson and local authorities: can the tort of negligence be built on shaky foundations? A New Zealand perspective. Preda, A., 2015. Rights: Concept and Justification.Ratio Juris,28(3), pp.408-415. Randell, J., 2014. Duty of Care-Haunting Past, Uncertain Future.NEL Rev.,2, p.75. STEWART, P. Stuhmcke, A. 2014, "Lacunae and litigants : a study of negligence cases in the High Court of Australia in the first decade of the 21st century and beyond",Melbourne University Law Review,vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 151-197. Vignesh, U. and Asha, S. (2015). Modifying Security Policies Towards BYOD. Procedia Computer Science, 50, pp.511-516. Zipursky, B.C., 2012. The law of torts.The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, p.261.