A tort law can be described as a civil wrong not arising from a contract and in the case of negligence, one should owe due consideration to one’s neighbour (Capiro Industries vs. Dickman 1990). Negligence therefore, can be described as the act of doing something a reasonable man would not do and a plaintiff must prove in such a case that the defendant owes a duty of care (Donoghue V. Stevenson 1932).
In this case, it is of paramount importance for the claimant to be able to prove that the negligent behaviour of the defendant which is Bull Pty Ltd would have caused the loss of the lucrative contract to supply the toys in order to win the claim that the subsequent loss after the action of the Dan could have been avoided in the event that he would have acted within reasonable limits. There are traditionally four elements of the tort of negligence which the plaintiff has to prove in order to be successful in winning the claim. There is need to prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty by falling below expected standards, the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer physical or economic harm and the harm suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable (Name of author and year). The four stage test has been reformed by statutory civil liability reforms in all States and Territories where recovery for loss in that situation must not be excluded by the statute. As going to be discussed in detail below, Kids P/L can establish the four elements of negligence.
The House of Lords in the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), proposed the adoption of the following conditions where the three stages should be taken into consideration which include; foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. In some cases it may not always follow that a duty of care