Business and Law Pearson Business Publications

Question: Describe about the Business and Law for Pearson Business Publications. Answer: Issue Considering the information provided, determine if Rebecca can potentially file a claim on Michelle with regards to negligence. Rule For establishing negligence in a particular situation, there are essentially three critical requirements that ought to be fulfilled. To begin with, it is imperative to show that the plaintiff owed a duty to care from the side of the defendant. Further, it needs to be established that the defendant breached the duty to care by acting in a negligent manner. On account of the negligent behavior of the plaintiff, the defendant has suffered harm which would have occurred if the breach did not happen (Lindgren, 2011). Duty to Care In order to establish the duty to care on part of the defendant, the commonly used test is the Neighbor test In regards to this test, the definition of neighbor includes all individuals who may be impacted by the choice exhibit by the action doer in relation to going ahead with a particular course of action or not engaging in the same (Gibson Fraser, 2014). This is clearly demonstrated in the arguments presented as part of the verdict of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at 580 case. With regards to ascertaining the impact of the activities, the scope is rather wide and does not have to impact in monetary sense or physical terms and may as well be in the form of emotional or mental stress. But the precise contours of duty to care are bound by the damage or harm that is foreseeable in nature and the defendant need not extend duty of care with regards to damages that are highly unlikely (Davenport Parker, 2014). Breach of duty It is imperative that the defendant takes reasonable actions so as to ensure that the neighbor does not get harm from the foreseeable causes. In the event that reasonable steps are taken by the action doer, then it may be assumed that the duty is discharged (Harvey, 2009). Further, the extend of care that is given to the neighbor should be in accordance with the underlying risk of incurring damage. If these are not taken, then it is stated that a breach of duty to care has occurred. It may be possible that despite the extension of reasonable care, the neighbor may get damage. In such cases, there is no breach of the duty to care (Pendleton Vickery, 2005). Harm/Damages As highlighted above, the damage that is tort law covers is rather expansive in scope and intent. It is imperative that a causal link be established between the breach of duty by the action doer and the damage suffered by the neighbour. This can be conclusively ascertained by indicating that injury would not have resulted in the event of duty of care being adhered to. Also, damages in tort law could be claimed for the damage that is directly or indirectly linked with the breach in the duty to care (Latimer, 2005). Also, in some cases, it may so happen that despite the underlying risk associated with a particular activity, the neighbor decides to participate in that activity and gets damaged. In such cases, the neighbor also needs to share potential liability as highlighted in the section on remedies available to the defendant (Gibson Fraser, 2014). Defence Available The defendant also has some defence approaches that may help to ward off the tort liability either partially or fully. One of the key defences that is significant in the given case is the principle of voluntary risk assumption (Lindgren, 2011). As per this principle, if the neighbor decides to be present in circumstances or participate in activities where the risk in inevitable, then in case of suffering damages, a part of the blame needs to be borne by the neighbor as there was choice with regards to exposure of this risk. Hence, in such situations, partial blame is shifted from the activity doer to the neighbor who is accused of being negligent (Harvey, 2009). Application As per the relevant facts, there was a performance delay which provides Rebecca and Michelle to visit a bar and get drunk. After the end of the performance, Rebecca could clearly realise that Michelle was under alcohol influence and hence taking a ride home in her car was a risky proposition. Inspite of this, Rebecca agreed to be driven home in car with Michelle. Michelle lacked control on the car and hence drove in a dangerous manner and hence Rebecca sensing the danger asked her stop. However, all her requests were in vain as Michelle continued driving which led to the car meeting a crash. The crash resulted in Rebecca sustaining injuries of serious nature. Based on the given facts, it is apparent that since Michelle is in the drivers seat, hence her driving actions have implications for all the people that are seated in the car. As Rebecca is seated in the car, hence s duty of care exists on behalf of Michelle directed towards Rebecca. By deciding to drive even under the influence of alcohol, the duty to care is violated by Michelle as she should have denied taking Rebecca home in this situation. Further, Michelle did not listen to Rebecca when she made repeated requests to move out of the car which established negligent conduct of Michelle. Had Michelle complied with her duty by either not drinking or complying with Rebeccas request to stop the vehicle, the damage suffered could have been avoided. Hence, Michelle is clearly liable for the injuries sustained by Rebecca. However in her defence, Michelle could potentially indicate that Rebecca should not have accepted a drive from her especially when she was well aware of Michelles situa tion. Therefore, some liability with regards to negligence also falls on Rebecca. Conclusion The above arguments clearly indicate that partial success would be achieved by Rebecca in regards to her negligence claim against Michelle. References Davenport, S. Parker, D. 2014, Business and Law in Australia 2nd edition, LexisNexis Publications, Sydney Gibson, A Fraser, D 2014, Business Law, 8th edition, Pearson Publications, Sydney Latimer, P 2005, Australian business law, 24th edition, CCH Australia Ltd. Sydney Pendleton, W Vickery, N 2005, Australian business law: principles and applications, 5th edition, Pearson Publications, Sydney Harvey, C. 2009, Foundations of Australian law. 3rd eds., Tilde University Press, Prahran, Victoria Lindgren, KE 2011, Vermeesch and Lindgren's Business Law of Australia, 12th eds., LexisNexis Publications, Sydney Pathinayake, A 2014, Commercial and Corporations Law, 2nd eds., Thomson-Reuters, Sydney