BUSINESS LAW Master Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

BUSINESS LAW Master - Essay Example In addition negligence is a legal cause f damage if it directly or contributes to produce such damage, so it is reasonably to say that the loss, injury or damage would not have happened if there is no negligence act. There are three essentials involved in determining negligence case. Duty f care, Standard f care and sufficient connection in law. A plaintiff must successfully prove that the defend owed all these essential to them, in order to claim legal damage or remedies. If one more f these essential are missing, the claim for negligence will be unsuccessful. Duty f care means a duty to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill. (Latmier, P.2004, p.197). Basically court observes recognized duties f care between professionals and clients, manufacture to consumer, schools to students, employers to employees. Duty f care is the legal requirement that the defendant must stick to a standard f conduct in protection others from unreasonable risk f injury or loss. To be liable for negligence in relation to another person, a person must owe a legal duty f care to that another person, its mean if there is no duty f care owe by the defendant, the plaintiff claim must fail. There are two types f duty f care, duty f care... in negligence act (physical injury or damage) and duty f care in negligence advice, according to the case, it can be seen that it is a negligence act f physical injury to plaintiff, as result as this report will be discussing about duty f care in negligence act (physical injury or damage). To prove that the defendant owe a duty f care is by doing the two test that Lord Atkin had established. And those tests are doctrine reasonable foresee ability and proximity. These two fundamental were devised and stated by Lord Atkin when dealing with the Donoghue v Stevenson case in 1932, and called these elements put together, "the neighbor test". Both these two elements are required in establishing a duty f care was owed. Reasonable foresee ability is whether a reasonable person, in the position f the defendant, have foreseen the like hood f injury to the plaintiff arising out f the defendant's behaviour (Moore, 2005, p.22). From this case that we had seen Mr. Chuck is ordered by his boss to work on a metal frame at manufacture, there is a big chance that the frame which weighing half tone supported by a heavy chain will snap one day and injure the employees who work near the frame, on the other hand the chain breakage is due to the failure f the employer to properly maintain the chain. In addition it does not required the exact nature f the loss or injury been foreseen, just the possibility injury f the same common nature as that suffered. Latmier (2002, p.204) notes that, the proximity requirement is introduces by the law to limit the test f reasonable foreseeability. Proximity between the defendant and plantiff needs to be established before a duty f care can arise. Proximity is defined as, we the proximity f the injured plaintiff such that the defended ought to have had