@2010Assignment 1IntroductionIn the tort of negligence three things should be proved for an action to be successful, the first one is that the defendant should own a duty of care to the plaintiff, the second is that the defendant breaks the duty of care within the standard of care as required by law and lastly this violation of duty of care lead to damage to the plaintiff (Ulrich 2006). The damage is supposed to be acknowledged by the law. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson2 it was held that one should take considerable care to evade acts or errors which one can considerably foresee has a likelihood of injuring the neighbor (John 2007). Duty of careThe case of Donoghue v.
Stevenson  demonstrates the law of negligence, laying the basis of the liability rule around the commonwealth. The Pursuer, Donoghue, drank ginger beer provided to her by a friend, who purchased it from a shop. Stevenson Company supplied the beer. When Ms. Donoghue was drinking the beer, she discovered the remains of a purportedly decayed slug. She filed a suit with Stevenson, even if there was not any relationship of contract since the friend made the payment.
Since there was no contract the principle of privity barred a direct action against the manufacturer, Andrew Smith (Stuhmcke 2005). In his judgment, Lord MacMillan identified a new classification of negligence tort since it was analogous to former cases regarding individuals hurting each other. Lord Atkin construed the biblical statements to “love thy neighbor, ” as the lawful requirement to ‘not harm thy neighbor. ’ He after that defined a neighbor as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question. " As a result, reasonably foreseeable damage should be compensated.
This is the first principle of negligence (John 2007). AnalysisIn this scenario, there was reasonably foreseeable damage since Alan was unfamiliar with the scooter and this is what resulted into the ensuing accident. As a result, all the victims, Brian, Mrs. Todd as well as her husband are entitled to compensation.
Alan ignored the fact that he was unfamiliar with the scooter and hence the act of negligence. Factual causationFor the defendant to be perceived liable, it should be demonstrated that specific acts or omissions caused the loss or resulted in the damage sustained. Even if the notion appears simple, the causation between someone’s violation of duty and the ensuing harm to another person may at times be very complex (Willy 2000). The fundamental test if to enquire if the injury would have taken place before, or without, the accused party’s violation of the duty owned to the injured party.
Even more specifically, if a breaching party considerably increases the risk of damage to another, then the violating party can be sued to the value of the damage he or she caused (Steele 2007). Analysis