Rebecca Duty Of Care Essay

Issue 1: Does Michelle owe Rebecca duty of care?

Rule 1:

Other can suffer injury because of your carelessness, an important relationship between you and anyone else who could be injured by your action is “neighbor”, see Donoghue v Stevenson.

The driver of a motor vehicle owes a duty of care to the person who is their passenger and property of other users of the road, and the standard of care is that of the competent driver, see Miler v Miler.

Application 1: In facts that Rebecca had twice asked to get out of the car after recognizing Michelle stated driving dangerously. As Michelle would not stop, Rebecca was no longer party to the illegal ride with a drunk driver and Rebecca was owed a duty of care because she did not want to be a part of

Rule 3:

To be recoverable from the defendant the losses incurred must actually be caused by the negligent act: see Cork v Kirby MacLean

To be recoverable the losses incurred must actually be caused by the negligent act and not to be remote. This means that the damage must not only a direct consequence of the negligent act but must have also been reasonably foreseeable: see Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd

Application 3:

In facts, applying ‘but for” test helps to solve the problem. On one hand, Rebecca accepted to join a ride with Michelle even realizing she was too drunk. But on the other hand, Michelle did not warn to Rebecca that she was intoxication that means she cannot take a safe trip.

The risk of Rebecca can be foreseeable. A car accident happens can bring serious injuries to the driver and passenger. In this situation, Rebecca was broken her leg. The risk was not far- fetched; the damage can be more serious such as dead.

Conclusion 3:

Rebecca’s injuries are faults of Michelle’s actions and Rebecca’s acceptance. The Rebecca’s damage is reasonably