Liability of the Professionals, Negligence and Care of Duty - Essay Example

? Number] [Word Count] Liability of the Professionals, Negligence and Care of Duty This paper aims to critically understand the tort of negligence and the cases which have made a mark in the field of law. There were a number of amendments which were made in understanding the tort of negligence when expected from professionals for causing damages to the claimants. Also, the paper discusses various dimensions of the subject matter in an in-depth manner with careful usage of case laws. The common law or the Australian law have clear writing regarding negligence or lack of care of duty to which the professionals are liable to. In case an individual is claimed with the tort of negligence, it makes it evident that a person has been not able to show careful act which must have caused harm to the other person in terms of property or other. It should be noted that the negligence tort has been long debated for different kinds of cases which have been posed against professionals over the time. It is highly necessary for the claimant to prove that the person who has been charged with the negligence tort has provided no care of duty within certain circumstances which ultimately caused him or her to lose property or any other damages. Herein, it is significant to understand the history of negligence tort. It was noted about 100 years ago, “Man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them”1. This is quiet an effective ground on which the tort of negligence can be well understood. By carefully interpreting this quotation, it becomes easier to note that a person is probable to show negligence towards his duty. In case there are damages noted as a result of the negligence towards the duty then it is suggested that the person may be claimed against. There are basically three situations which should be marked in case there is a reporting of a case claiming an individual to be negligent regarding his duty. Initially, it should be well proven that in case the duty was performed effectively then it would have helped in the safety of the property or any other damage bearer. Also, there needs to be a clear definition regarding the relationship between the claimants and defendants who were involved in the case2. It should be noted that there were a number of situations which were testes when the tort was practiced in a number of cases of negligence. One of the most effective yet history-making cases was between Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100. As per the case rulings, a snail was found in an opaque ginger beer bottle which was being produced by the company of Stevenson. The consumption of the ginger beer was done Donoghue where the damage was noted to be extreme shock and abdominal pain. It was marked the Donoghue sued Stevenson for risking the life of customers. As a result of the claim, it was demanded that the food/beverage company owned by Stevenson must pay a handsome amount for the pain caused. The ruling provided by the judges on the case presented a new dimension to the tort of negligence and liability. The landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson was marked to testify the neighbor principal whether there is a need of determination against the duty of care held for the purpose of damages3. Other than the cases of negligence, there can be various situations where one needs to bring surety of the statements as provided in the shape of advice. It has been widely noted that many financial agents would provide information based on mere discussions and not truth/facts. Such an example of negligent misstatement has been posed in the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963). As the information posed, Hedley, the firm needed relevant information regarding Easipower for sanctioning credit4. It is for this purpose that Hedley asked Heller5 to provide necessary information. As a result, it was marked that credit was provided to Easipower. With the passage of time, it was noted that Easipower was going out of the business because there were increased losses6. As a result, it was marked that Hedley sued Heller for providing wrong advice with the implication of tort of negligence in providing information. It was marked that there was a loss but relatively the relationship between Heller and Hedley was of no need for provision of duty of care. In other words, it can be said that the court dismissed the case because the relationship between Hedley and Heller was informal and had no consequences concerning the fall of Easipower. The duty of care may arise with careless statements with damages foreseeable. As far as the Australian consumer law is concerned, it should be noted that it beholds a number of law which have been specified to the cause of protecting consumers7. Since professional prediction houses which have been involved in food products have been marked to have claimed repeatedly for being negligent. Common cases can be Caparo Industries plc v Dickman where the duty of care was proven to bring situation and consequences of relationship between the producer of the product and consumer of product8. It should be noted that the common law has been widely benefited by the Act since it has molded the concerns regarding negligence in a well preserved manner including different disputations and circumstances of relationship. Bibliography Chapman, Matthew (2010). The Snail and the Ginger Beer. Great Britain: Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing. Explanatory Memorandum: Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010". Parliament of Australia. 2010 Heuston, R. F. V. (1957). "Donoghue v. Stevenson in Retrospect". Modern Law Review (Wiley-Blackwell) 20 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1957.tb00421.x. Lord Atkin (1932). "Law as an Educational Subject". Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law (The Society of Public Teachers of Law) 1932: 27–31. Walker, T., 1983. The science of international law. New York: C. J. Clay and sons. Read More