Business Law Case Study
Explain what action or actions Lance and Cadella could bring against Parramatta Council. Do not discuss damages.
In order to decide whether the Parramatta Local Council can be accused of tort against Lance and Candella we need to look at the case with respect to each element of the tort as presented in the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act, 2002 and the examples from the common law. In the presented case study the Council had closed the entrance to the park for illegal visitors arriving in car in order to preserve the park’s environment. The setting took place near the intersection of the road and the pathway whether cyclist Lance was riding. The Council has the legal right to take steps for the betterment of the society and locality but general understanding of due care and responsibility dictates to us that all hurdles and barriers in the pathway or roads should be accompanied by adequate road side signs and boards warning the visitors and local residents of the nearby obstructions and barriers. It so appears that any of the signs relating to the upcoming chain barrier blocking the entrance to the park not only for the cars but for the cyclists as well. It therefore appears that the Council of the city district had failed to exercise its duty of care as required by the tort laws. The failure to display necessary road signs may have had a direct involvement in the injury suffered by Lance and resulting emotional distress suffered by Cadella. However before arriving at any conclusion we will now look at each element that must be present to prove the claim for the tort of negligence committed by the Parramatta Local Council.
Negligence is basically the failure by one person to take and exercise reasonable due care in performing his legal duties. (Merriam-webster.com 2015). Exercise of prudence and reasonable care ensures that the actions of the person do not harm the other in any way and this is the objective behind the tort laws. The main question that the law would seek to answer in the aforementioned case study is whether the harm suffered by Lance and Cadella can be considered to be a direct result of the failure to exercise duty of care by the Council or did Lance failed to properly safeguard himself, say by not wearing the proper safety gear while riding bicycle and not taking adequate safety measures while riding. Claim for damages against the Council can only be brought and proved in the favour of Lance and Cadella, if it can be proved that the harm suffered by them was because of the failure to exercise reasonable care and fulfil the duty of care on the part of Parramatta Local Council (Section 40, Civil Law (Wrongs) Act, 2002).
Now let us consider each and every element of the tort of negligence with respect to the presented case.
Duty of Care
Firstly it needs to be proved that the duty of care existed and the Council needed to act in a certain way so that any foreseeable harm or loss of the nearby passing pedestrians and cyclists can be avoided. It is the duty of the road authorities and those empowered to take actions in the public interest should exercise their statutory powers with due care so that any accidents and injuries can be avoided at all costs.
The English case law Caparo v. Dickman sets a great benchmark for testing if the duty of care existed and could have been breached by the party by conducting a threefold test as follows.
| Can the risk said to be reasonably foreseeable? |
The Council being the sole metropolitan authority is expected to have knowledge of the locality surrounding Macquarie Avenue and should have knowledge that failure to put a chain that can be easily spotted and/or omission to place relevant road side warning signs could result in a gruesome accident. |
| Can the relationship of proximity said to have existed between the plaintiff and defendant? | This does not simply means the existence of physical proximity but in fact according to the developments and judgements made in Donoghue v Stevenson it means, “such close and direct relations that the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affected by his careless act.” It can be assumed that the Council had the knowledge that the chain placed by them could cause injury if not noticed or seen by the nearby cyclists from a safe distance. Hence proximity relationship existed. |
| Is it just and fair to impose the liability in the given circumstances? | This depends on the Caparo Test as stated by the Lord Bridge in judgement for Caparo v. Dickman, “What emerges is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterized by the law as one of “proximity” or “neighborhood” and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other.” |
Breach of Duty
Secondly we need to prove that the duty of care was not exercised by the Council. This is apparent from the facts presented in the case study. What constitutes reasonable and due care is defined by section 42 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 as the level of care that can be expected to be exercised by the person who is prudent and possesses all the information and knowledge that the defendant is expected to have at the time the incident took place.
There appears to have no evidence at all relating to the placement of proper sign boards attracting the attention of nearby cyclists and pedestrians who may consequently not notice the chain that is of the same color as the footpath and suffer a fall causing injuries. The chain should have been painted in red or green or other prominent color different from the surroundings so that it can be easily noticed and avoided. It would not be possible for the pedestrians and cyclists to notice the chain that was possible of the same matching color as that of the footpath from the safe distance.
