Civil Law
According to the Civil Liability Act 1936, the word negligence is defined as doing or failing to do a thing that a reasonable person would or would not do in certain type of situation and this may cause a person to suffer from any damage, injury or loss as a result. And in order to access the negligence of any individual as well as the liability that those individuals may encounter due to their act of negligent, it is important to know how negligence is determined in law. According to the Law of Negligence, the Panel is requested to examine the formulation of duties for Tom and the bar owner; the causation of Tom and the bar owner; the foreseeability of harm by the two parties as well as the remoteness of the risk. Furthermore, it is important to understand if there is any contributory negligence for Tom and the bar owner (Attorney General of Western Australia, 2008).
To begin with, the bar owner hold the duty of care to Tom as he was the customer to the bar. The bar owner should monitor the consumption of alcohol from Tom and prevent Tom from driving due to the reason he is likely to be impaired but the bar owner would not have the right to interfere with the decision made by Tom for his means of travel. Additionally, the bar owner not hold the duty of care to Sam as he is not able to foresee what types of accidents Tom may be engaged in and who will be the victims in the cases. Other than that, there is a doubt whether there is a breach of duty for Tom as a driver. Undoubted, there is a breach of duty for Tom for consuming alcohol and perform driving at the same time, However, it is important to examine whether Tom had given a simultaneous attention to prevent the accident to occur or not, and the condition of Tom’s car during the accident as well (Manley vs Alexander [2005] HCA 79, New South Wales vs Fahy [2007] HCA 20) (Turner & Martin, 2010).
Secondly, Sam’s wife would need to prove that the harm to her husband would not have occurred but for the
To begin with, the bar owner hold the duty of care to Tom as he was the customer to the bar. The bar owner should monitor the consumption of alcohol from Tom and prevent Tom from driving due to the reason he is likely to be impaired but the bar owner would not have the right to interfere with the decision made by Tom for his means of travel. Additionally, the bar owner not hold the duty of care to Sam as he is not able to foresee what types of accidents Tom may be engaged in and who will be the victims in the cases. Other than that, there is a doubt whether there is a breach of duty for Tom as a driver. Undoubted, there is a breach of duty for Tom for consuming alcohol and perform driving at the same time, However, it is important to examine whether Tom had given a simultaneous attention to prevent the accident to occur or not, and the condition of Tom’s car during the accident as well (Manley vs Alexander [2005] HCA 79, New South Wales vs Fahy [2007] HCA 20) (Turner & Martin, 2010).
Secondly, Sam’s wife would need to prove that the harm to her husband would not have occurred but for the