Issue: The case in question has issues that requires a decision to be made. Firstly, it has to be established if the council is liable for the injuries that was caused to Replace in accordance to the law of negligence when he was celebrating the successful launch of a business venture with both Mark and Mary that were both present with him at the time the incident took place where he fell from the cliff which is located in the Watch out point. In order to establish whether Willow council is responsible an investigation has to be undertaken to find out if the council has taken adequate measures which averts people from falling down from that cliff in the watch out point. This issue is to be discussed within the duty of care framework and to
…show more content…
(1856) is the case in which the idea of duty of care was explained by the court. It was explained that in order to decide if the defendant can be held liable for negligence it must be first decided using the conduct of a reasonable person as the standard to test for negligence. In such manner, if the defendant has taken all reasonable safety measures it is believed the defendant has followed the conduct of a reasonable person in accordance to the standard and therefore, the defendant can not be held liable. Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) is another important case that tests by the court for the duty of care. In accordance to this test for the court to confirm the defendant owes the duty of care, consideration has to made as to whether the loss that occurred or injury that has been caused to the claimant was due to the result of the conduct of the defendant and that the loss or injury could have been reasonably foreseen. The next criteria to determine is if there should be a relationship of a sufficient proximate nature meaning that the situation of the case regards them as neighbors. The other condition that the case has to meet is the question as to whether the enforcement of a liability upon the defendant of the case would be genuine and equitable (Keenan,
(1856) is the case in which the idea of duty of care was explained by the court. It was explained that in order to decide if the defendant can be held liable for negligence it must be first decided using the conduct of a reasonable person as the standard to test for negligence. In such manner, if the defendant has taken all reasonable safety measures it is believed the defendant has followed the conduct of a reasonable person in accordance to the standard and therefore, the defendant can not be held liable. Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) is another important case that tests by the court for the duty of care. In accordance to this test for the court to confirm the defendant owes the duty of care, consideration has to made as to whether the loss that occurred or injury that has been caused to the claimant was due to the result of the conduct of the defendant and that the loss or injury could have been reasonably foreseen. The next criteria to determine is if there should be a relationship of a sufficient proximate nature meaning that the situation of the case regards them as neighbors. The other condition that the case has to meet is the question as to whether the enforcement of a liability upon the defendant of the case would be genuine and equitable (Keenan,