Using the 4 step process explain the liability (if any) of Tate Engineering
Services Pty Ltd to Charlie Harrop in the common law Tort of Negligence. (35
Submission: Via Turnitin. Instructions for submission via Turnitin are onBlackboard.
Submit your answer as ONE Microsoft Word document (no PDF’s).
Note: The total word count is not to exceed 3000 words.
Assessment Rubric Criteria:
Area of law: 0 marks
Principles of law: 20 Marks
Application to facts: 10 Marks
Conclusion: 2 Mark
Referencing and general presentation 3 marks
(Write in ways appropriate to the discipline, purpose and context concisely and effectively,
appropriately referenced. Properly apply the four-step process.)
1. Late papers incur a penalty of 3.5 marks per day or part thereoflate.
2. Exceeding word count limits will result in deduction of marks.
3. Reference correctly.
4. Name your document correctly in the following format:
5. You may wish to check your submission using the Turnitin but remember your final
upload is the version that will be marked.
6. Bibliographies are not included in the word count.
END OF ASSIGNMENT DOCUMENT
Principle of Law
Under common law, the tort of negligence is used to determine the legal liability that a defendant bears for careless action, inaction or damage that leads to injury. Negligence is defined as the failure by a party to do something that a reasonable person would have done or doing something that cannot be done by a reasonable person, from which another party suffers damage. Therefore, there are three key facts that must be established under the law for the tort of negligence to stand, including:
One, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care. Duty of the care arises when one party is legally obligated to prevent or cushion another party from damages. Duty of care has changed historically, from a tradition of limited categories of relationships like common carriers, common innkeepers, surgeon, and others; to an expanded conception where there are not pre-existing relations among the parties. For example, under the new conception of the duty of care, architecture will have a duty of care for a client who is injured in a house if an investigation reveals that there was an error in design. The expanded conception of duty of care was exemplified in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) where the House of Lords departed from the narrowed to a general definition. In his ruling, Lord Atkin stated that the duty of care is owed to a person who is directly or closely affected by an action, in what came to be known as the law of proximity; and the nature of duty of care encompasses acts or omission which a party can