Case Study: Was Car Park Owner Negligence

A. Was Car park owner negligent towards his duty of care?

According to Graw et al In ACT negligence is covered by both the common law and statue such as Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 and plaintiff must prove that there has been a breach in the duty of care owed to them by defendant resulting in damages suffered by them.

It was held in the case of Donoghue V Stevenson that a duty of care will exist in a situation where loss, damage or injury to one party was reasonably foreseeable and relationship between the parties was close requiring one party to take reasonable steps so that the other party is not at risk. Under statuary law, there will be a breach of duty of care if:

a. the risk was foreseeable;

b. the risk was not insignificant; and

c.

in the circumstances, a reasonable person would have taken precautions.

B. Was the level of care provided by defendant was adequate?

According to Graw et’al in order to prove a breach within the duty of care by defendant the plaintiff must prove that it was clearly evident that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk that others can be injured due to defendant’s act and that plaintiff belongs to the class of people whom are most likely to be regarded as being at risk.

It was held in the case of Chapman V Hearse the precise amount of injury or loss/ damage doesn’t need to be calculated, just the risk that a person could suffer some loss and damage as result of defendant’s acts or omission.

According to the Section 42 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) “the standard of care required of the defendant is that of a reasonable person in the defendant's position– it will depend on what a reasonable man would do to lower/eliminate a foreseeable risk.”

C. Proving Loss by Plaintiff and limitation of liability due to medical pre-condition?

According to Graw et al there are three things that needs to be establish any claim can be awarded by courts:

a. the loss/damage/harm suffered is recognise by law and can be