law245 pastyear tutorial answer scheme for negligence.



kepada mereka yang ada ambil subject ini. boleh semak tak . betul ke tidak cara amer menjawab soalan ini. :D terima kasih.


June 2012 negligence
QUESTION 1
Mrs. Choo Chi was employed as a part-time cleaner by Mr. Boss. She was required to use
various chemical cleaning products for her work. Mrs. Choo Chi began suffering from skin
problems such as rashes and itchiness on her hands and wrists. Her skin problem becomes
worst after sometime.
Advise Mrs. Choo Chi if she has any cause of action against Mr. Boss.
(25 marks)
 


                The issue in the problem is negligence which consist of the following elements, plaintiff owed a duty of care to the defendant, defendant breached the duty of care, defendant suffered damages and injury.
                Negligence can be defined, according to Loghelly Iron V M’mullan, negligence means more than heedless on careless conduct. It propertly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty is owing.
                The first element established is duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The test is neighborhood’s principle. For example, based on Donoghue vs Stevenson, the issue is whether a manufacturer as a defendant owed a duty of care to the consumer which is as a plaintiff, the held is the defendant as a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a consumer. Another example is based on Bourhill vs Young, where the issue is a pregnant fishwife alighted from a train and was made ill by hearing (not seeing) a fatal accident to a motorcyclist some 50 yards away. The held is, the motorcyclist not in the circumstances reasonably have foreseen the likehood of injury to the plaintiff and therefore, owed no duty of care.
                In this case,  Mr. Boss owed a duty of care to Mrs.Choo . This is because there is a close relationship between them that is between employer and employee.
            The second element to establish is breached of duty of care. The test is reasonable man concept. Based on Blyth vs Birmingham case, negligence is the mission to do something which a reasonable man would not do or doing something which a reasonable man would not. Other case is Bolam vs Friern Hospital management committee. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have highest expert skill. It is well establish law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular act. In the case of a medical man nefligence means failure to act in accordance with the standards od reasonably competent medical man at the time.
            Based on this problem, Mr.Bos has breached the duty of care by failing to supply his employee with protective  glove. As a reasonable man, Mr. Boss should supply his employee with protective glove.
As a result of breach of duty of care, plaintiff suffered damages or injury. The test is foreseeable test. Based on the Wagon Mound case, damages by fire was unforeseeable. Therefore, defendant not liable.
            In this case, when Mrs.Choo was required to use various chemical cleaning products for her work,the impact cause Mrs. Choo chi began suffering from skin problems such as rashes and itchiness on her hands and wrists. Her skin problem becomes worst after sometime. Mr. Boss should be able to foresee that if he does not supply protective glove for his employee it will cause damages to his employee.
            In conclusion, all the elements of negligence are proven. That is duty of care between employer and employee, breach of duty of care by failing to provide protective glove for employee and caused skin problems. I would advise Mrs. Choo to take action against Mr. Boss.




Amaran : Jangan tekan banner ni kalau tak nak hadiah murah.
Bagikan :
+
Previous
This is the oldest page
8 Komentar untuk "law245 pastyear tutorial answer scheme for negligence."

Oh no.. sy tak faham apa2 di sini.. hehe

so far jawapan ok..tapi boleh dihuraikan lagi sama ada pekerja part time adalah pekerja yang dilindungi dibawah akta pekerjaan. + add kes malaysia beserta mahkamah dan hakim mana yang memutuskan kes itu. lagi tinggi mahkamah, lagi terbaik autoriti tu..huraian elemen ketiga "As a result of breach of duty of care, plaintiff suffered damages or injury. The test is foreseeable test. Based on the Wagon Mound case, damages by fire was unforeseeable. Therefore, defendant not liable. " sepatutnya kes ini tak perlu digunakan kerana tak menunjukkan liability. cari kes yang memang memutuskan seseorang adalah liable. Hope dapat membantu! good luck!

@DAIRI FARISHAwoowww best best .. terima kasih :D nanti saya aturkan .. yang pasal wagon mound tu saya tak dpt cari lah case lain yang menyebakan damage and liable to defendant ..

ok..cri smpai jumpe ye..hihi..utk kes landmark mcm Donoghue vs Stevenson, Bourhill vs Young dll, boleh masukkan nama mahkamah + hakim yang memutuskan kes itu. tak ingat sama ada House of Lords or yang lain..huhu..then ++ kes ini telah diikuti dalam kes malaysia ....vs ...... dimana mahkamah ..... memutuskan......good luck! insyallah dpt byk point kalau jawapan mcm ni :)

macam mana dengan defeses

wow amer corner akademiknya entry ni! hahahaha tanya soalan tutorial kot.

Comment Anda ?

 
Template By KunciDunia
Back To Top