Business Law- Law of Negligence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Business Law- Law of Negligence - study ExampleHelens claim for her injuries and lost earnings against Metro plc. The issues in this case is whether Metro Plc owes Helen a duty of care for failing to secure the wood that passersby were supposed to use to cross over the holes they had dug. Furthermore, the another(prenominal) issue found in this case is to ascertain whether it was Metro Plc negligence, which led her to lose her earnings. The law relevant in this case is law of negligence negligence is defined as the lack of use of healthy care resulting into causing harm to the other person or property. Negligence occurs either when an individual does something that a reasonable person would not do or failing to do something that a reasonable humans would. There are various precedents make up been set over the years concerning the law of negligence. One of those precedents is profound neighborship that was set in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson and another recent precedent, which is relevant to this case, is Caparo vs. Dickman (1990). Metro Plc is apt for Helens injury since they could not have foreseen the accident. This is because they had already taken action into ensuring that the passersby would not suffer injury however, their action did not bar Helen from suffering personal injury. In Caparo vs. Dickman (1990), it was held that the principle of neighbourhood involved more than skilful a person who was in a contract with the defendant. In addition, in that location are three principles use to determine whether there is duty of care. The first principle is foreseeability of claimant being harmed, it is clear that the defendants had foreseen possible harm and had not taken plenteous action to ensure that passersby like Helen would not be at risk of harm. The other principle is the proximity between the defendant and the claimant. In this case, there is an aspect of neighbourhood between Helen and Metro plc since the defendants knew claimant and other passersby used the place. In Donoghue vs. Donoghue (1932), judge Atkin stated that a neighbour is not a person with whom one has natural closeness but one that is likely to be affected by the other persons actions. The third principle of Caparo case states that a person can only when be held to owe a duty of care if doing so is reasonable, fair and just. In the case of Helen vs. Metro plc, it was reasonable fair and just that the defendant ensured that the claimant and other passersby were not at risk. On the other claim of losing her earnings, Helen cannot blame Metro Plc this is because she spent more time in hospital because she was not served on arrival. Metro Plc could not have foreseen that she could have lost her earnings as a result, of their actions therefore, they do not owe them a duty of care. In Spartan steel and Alloys Ltd V Martin & Co. Ltd (1873) it was held that stinting loss can only be recoverable only if it results from physical damage that was cause d by the defendants negligence (Harpwood, 2000). Helens claim against Hubble & Co. In this case, Helen is the claimant from Hubble & Co for negligence this is because she relied on the report that Hubble & Co prepared to buy more shares, and this led her into losing money since burp &Cos report was wrong. The issues that arise from this case include whether Bubble &Co are liable since they were merely employees of Metro Plc the company that Helen owned shares. The law applicable in this case is pure economic loss negligence (Matthews, 2012).