澳洲代写论文服务

五年专注悉尼论文代写 信誉保证
turnitin检测 保证原创率 高分通过

本公司成立以来,在澳洲代写论文领域获得了不错的口碑,98%以上的客户顺利通过..欢迎大家进行咨询和享受公司为你提供的全方位服务!不论你的英语论文有多难,deadline有多急,我们将给你带来最专业可靠的澳洲代写论文服务。

Order Now

Case analysis 作业代写

    Case analysis
    1.0  Introduction
    Case analysis  作业代写
    A tort is defined as a civil wrong which will be compensated by the court. Negligence is the most common type of tort which requires four elements to be satisfied in order to have a successful claim. They are the duty of care, breach of that duty, damages and causation between the damages and breach. In reality, contributory negligence may happen when the injured party contributed part of the reason that causes himself damages. Under such condition, contributory negligence may apportion the injuries or damages between the injured party and the breaching party, thus lightening the liabilities of the breaching party.
     
    2.0  Case analysis
    To establish negligence, duty of care is one of the preconditions.[1] Without duty of care, there will not be any compensation. Duty of care stems from different sources: contract, statutory regulations, public interest and others. (Barton, 2008) One type of duty that is most common is the duty owed by a manufacturer to the people that buy or use his products. The principle behind this type of duty is that as manufacture, he surely must know the products much better than his customers. In this sense, a manufacturer should bear the responsibility to ensure that his product is safe, both to the physical condition of the user but also to the user’s other property. If the flaws which pose threats to the wellbeing of the user actually lead to damages or injuries to the user, the manufacturer must bear the liability to compensate any loss thus suffered.
     
    Niall buys five boxes of fireworks from Zayn, who is a firework manufacturer. Later, these fireworks exploded. Investigation revealed that the fireworks were from a dangerously faulty batch, which means that compared to other fireworks, these faculty fireworks pose more threats. Zayn breached his duty by selling faculty fireworks to Niall. The next step would be to examine the causation between the breach of that duty and the damages. The explosion was triggered by a burning cigar near the fireworks tossed by Niall. According to the facts given in this case, it can be concluded that the causation between the breach of duty by Zayn in selling faulty fireworks to Niall and the explosion did exist. For fireworks that meet the production standards, a nearby burning cigar does not lead to explosion. It was because the fireworks were faulty that led to explosion in the end. In this respect, Zayn should be responsible for the damages suffered by Niall.
     
    However, the facts in this case also indicate contributory negligence. As a defence, Zayn can claim that Niall failed to take care for his own safety under the condition and the failure was a contributing factor of the accident that happened. (Simon, 2003) As a reasonable person, it is a common knowledge that there must not be any fire near fireworks, or the consequence would be very bad. Niall contributed to his own injuries first by tossing burning cigar near the fireworks. Secondly, he stored 20 barbecue gas bottles in the warehouse where also stored these fireworks. This practice was not acceptable as it greatly increased the danger of explosion. As a result, the damages suffered by Niall greatly increased. Due to contributory negligence, Niall should bear part of the damages caused by the explosion. 
     Case analysis  作业代写
    In Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291, Davis was standing in a dangerous place of a dust lorry. And he was killed when a bus tries to pass the lorry on a narrow road. The Court of Appeal held that Davies should be one-fifth responsible for the damage as he positioned himself in a dangerous place. The lorry should take four-fifth of the responsibility as the driver failed to exercise reasonable duty of care to guarantee the safety of Davies.
     Case analysis  作业代写
    The consequences of negligence include monetary compensation, which is constituted by future losses, pain and other suffering, and compensation. (Rogers, 2006) As a result, the damages that suffered by Niall include his shop, warehouse, damages stock and the loss of future earning incurred by the repair. Given the fact that the faulty firework was the causing factor, and the failure to take care of the property was the contributing factor, the responsibilities for the party should be divided. Zayn is to take 40 percent of the damages while Niall is to take the remaining 60 percent.  
     Case analysis  作业代写
    3.0  Conclusion
    In conclusion, according to the facts in this case, Niall can succeed in the case against Zayn as four elements required were all met. It was because Zayn sold him faulty fireworks that these fireworks caught fire so easily. Due to contributory negligence, Niall failed to take proper care to keep his property safe, and he should take part of the damages.
     Case analysis  作业代写
     
    Reference
    Books
    Barton, P. (2008). Clinical Negligence. Tottel Publishing.
    Simon, D. (2003). Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Rogers, W. (2006). Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort. London:Sweet & Maxwell.
    Cases
    Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291
    Hay v Young [1943] AC 92


    [1] Hay v Young [1943] AC 92