The Rights and Liabilities of the Parties in Tort
Issues
1. Does an individual breach the duty of care when he or she triggers a causation that leads to the injury of a third party?
2. Can an individual sue another individual for negligence and causation in situations such as road accidents?
Rules
The duty of care is widely applicable in all social contexts. Every individual is liable for any injury caused to a third party as a result of negligence or causation of an event that can cause injury. The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) is an Australian law legislated in NSW, which offers important directives that help courts and individuals to solve cases involving breach of duty of care, negligence, and causation. According to the law, all people are entitled to practice the duty of care. Breaching the duty of care is an offence that is punishable by the courts of law under the provisions of the Act. According to the law, anyone that fails to act in a manner in which a reasonable person could have acted to prevent causation of injury is said to have breached the duty of care and should be prosecuted.
Application
Everyone has a duty of care. In this case, Rachel and Ben breached the duty of care. Every road user is entitled to the duty of care and ensure every other person is safe. First, Rachel should have known that it is risky for a car to be parked on a busy road. She has a duty of care to ensure there is no harm, injury, or inconvenience caused by her action. However, her case is understandable because she contacted the roadside assistance company to come and offer the required help. It is also observable from the case scenario that she tried to push the car from the road but she was overwhelmed. She also realized that the road was wide enough to allow the passage of other road users. However, she is indirectly responsible for the causation.Her case is similar to Donoghue v Stevenson in which the defendant was accused of negligence where snail remains were found in one bottle of the defendant’s products. Following the consumption of the contents of the bottle, the complainant suffered mental shock and severe gastro-enteritis. It was the duty of the defendant to prevent snails from entering into bottles and even inspect the bottles to ensure they are not contaminated.
Causation comes into play when negligence is manifested in a situation that leads to damage or injury. According to the law, negligence is ruled as a factor whenever a defendant owes a complainant a duty of care, the defendant breaches the duty of care, and damage or injury is caused as a direct effect of the breach of duty. Therefore, the occurrence of events in this case scenario indicates that Rachel triggered the causation. She knew that her car was at the wrong place on the road and could easily cause harm to the other motorists using the same road. As regards her duty of care, she should have been aware of impending the trouble including accidents and other road impacts such as traffic congestion. The intuition states that the accident could not have happened if her car were not at the wrong place on the road. Therefore, she was the cause of the accident and the aftermath of injuries as explained in the laws of tort.
There is logic in stating that the chances of the accident occurring would be zero is Rachel’s car was not on the road. Although Ben caused the accident that led to the injury of both Rachel and Olivia, it would be considered as an indirect causation. His involvement in the causation was triggered by the causation set by Rachel. However, he is still liable for the injuries caused due to negligence. There is negligence in his case because he did not show the duty of care that any reasonable person could have shown on the road. His actions preceding the accident were wrong. He was listening to music and lost his concentration on the wheel, which led to the car crashing into Rachel’s car. The argument of breaching of the duty of care is evident. He was supposed to be keen on the road. Relatively, any driver is expected to be alert and be able to make the right decisions quickly to avoid causing too much damage. Therefore, it is viable to assert that his negligence of not concentrating while driving and not minding the effects on the other motorists amounted to the events that led to the accident and the subsequent injuring of Rachel and Olivia. He should be prosecuted under the provision of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
The debate regarding the duty of care by Ben stretches to numerous arguments about the relationship between him and the other two parties. Even though he caused the accident that led to the injury of Olivia and Rachel, he can seek precedence of Heaven v Pender, which concerns the duty of care in such a way that it manifests the duty of care as a means of alleviating damage whenever one’s property is near another one’s. Similar situation unfolds in Ben’s case because his car came into close proximity with Rachel’s. However, it is different from the above case because the objects are movable, but not immovable like the others.
Another case that offers direction to this scenario is Withyman v State of NSW and Anor in which the court declared that, when a teacher seduces her student and gets involved in any act of intimacy, even if it happens outside the school, she is liable for breach of the duty of care. Any argument on the occurrence of events in a different location would still be considered a diversionary tactic. For instance, Rachel cannot argue that Ben should have noticed the car earlier before causing the accident and slow down or use another the extra space. She should have placed life savers in strategic locations behind the car to alert the other uses of the impending obstacle. Therefore, she acted out of ignorance and is liable for the causation of the accident. Consequently, she can be charged for negligence and failing to protect the people that she owed the duty of care. In New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland, the script was different regarding the duty of care as the court was reluctant to extend the principle the duty of care to teachers that engage in sexual intimacy with their students. The court declared it is the duty of schools, but not the obligation of individual teachers, to own the duty of care concerning the safety of their students. Oyston v St Patrick’s College also found St.Patrick College liable for failing in its duty of care practice.
Reasonable foreseeability is the most significant part of negligence that can be used to solve Rachel’s case. She did not know that her action would cause harm to others. Therefore, she can be pardoned for causing the accident. Chapman v Hearseand Tame v New South Wales are examples of cases in which the issue of foreseeability arose regarding the phenomenon of occurrence of unexpected accident. The same applies in Richardson v Mt Druitt Workers Club where the complainant sued the club for their failure to practice duty of care and caused harm to him. This case would help to determine whether Rachel had a duty of care in regards to Ben’s safety.
Conclusion
Concerning the case, both Ben and Rachel showed a factor of negligence by leading to the causation that exacerbated the occurrence of the accident. They did not consider their duty of care while on the road. On the other hand, Olivia is the victim of the negligence because she was driving on her safe side when Ben hit her car and led to her injury. There have been many cases in Australia regarding the tort of negligence and duty of care as declared by the courts of law. It is very likely for Ben to state that he had no contract with the other parties regarding his duty of care. Unfortunately, such assertions are countered by Le Lievre v Gould, which affirmed that an individual owns another the duty of care even in the absence of a contract between them. Even though there was no contract between Ben and the rest regarding their duty of care, he was still liable to owe them the duty of care. Therefore, the court is likely to find Ben guilty on the grounds of negligence and failure to consider the duty of care while driving. Similarly, although injured, Rachel would be charged for causation of the events that led to the accident and the subsequent injuries caused.
Bibliography
Books Cited
Clarke, A.D., Devereux, J.A., Werren J. and O’Reilly, J., Torts: A Practical Learning Approach, LexisNexis, 3rd Ed, 2013.
Commentary, LexisNexis, 7th ed, 2012.
John Hodgson, John Lewthwaite. Tort Law Textbook, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Lunney, Mark and Ken Oliphant. Tort Law: Text and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J. and Foster, N., Torts: Cases and
Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials, Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009.
Cases Cited
Chapman v Hearse [1961] 106 CLR 112
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Heaven v Pender [1932] AC 562, 580
Le Lievre v Gould [1883] 11 QBD 503, 509
New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland [2003] HCA 4
Oyston v St Patrick’s College [2013] NSWCA 135
Richardson v Mt Druitt Workers Club [2011] NSWSC 31
Tame v New South Wales [2002] 211 CLR 317
Withyman v State of NSW and Anor [2010] NSWDC 186
