The Negligence In Term Of Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The Negligence In Term Of Law - Essay Example The above definition has been taken from the case of Ryland. According to the Civil Act 2002 Section 42, the first part of negligence is the duty of care:â€Å"the standard of care required of the defendant is that of a reasonable person in the defendant’s position who was in possession of all the information that the defendant either had or ought reasonably to have had, at the time of the incident out of which the harm arose†   After ascertaining that there was a duty of care, the plaintiff has to prove that there was a breach of such duty, which resulted in an injury to the Plaintiff. In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged.The defense of Marv in would be the appropriate precaution of risk, and before concluding that argument let us define and precaution of risk as covered in the Act:â€Å"A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless— (a) The risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known); and (b) the risk was not insignificant; and (c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken those precautions.†... The defence of Marvin would be appropriate precaution of risk, and before concluding that argument let us define and precaution of risk as covered in the Act: â€Å"A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless— (a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known); and (b) the risk was not insignificant; and (c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken those precautions.†4 Marvin has the defence of saying that he took enough precaution against the risk, but the pothole was in such a place that any other person in a similar situation would not have been able to avoid the accident. Along with this fact, the bike did not get damaged and Norton faced injury due to the fact that he had already been injured at the spot where he fell, which resulted in the aggravation of such injury. The right of Marvin is to sue the University of Canberra under the common law principle for not taking enough precaution in order to avoid the pothole where the bike crashed. He can transfer the liability onto the college by arguing on the basis of negligence on the part of college through not maintaining the University campus in the right order. The liability of Marvin is the fact that his actions caused injury to Norton, and on top of that he was drunk while he was riding. He did not take enough care and precaution when he knew while being drunk he should not have ridden the bike. Moving onto Norton, let us first deal with his liability. Norton was the one who introduced Marvin for drinking to drown his sorrows. From this point it can be inferred that he was totally aware of what was