Machine Caused Severe Explosion And Losses â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Machine Caused Severe Explosion And Losses? Answer: Introducation As per the decision given in Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 AC 522 case, any manufacturing company who makes and offers their product to customers has duty to care towards their customers. It means the company has duty to care to provide merchantable product to the customers with proper detailed instruction and inbuilt safety measures. This is because any fault or defect in the product can harm the customers and can result in significant losses. Hence, it is pivotal responsibility of the company to provide the right product to the customers in regards to prevent any potential loss to customers. Further, if any additional information regarding the product is required, then it is essential that company must inform the customer about the same (Gibson and Fraser, 2014). When the company does not take requisite measures and provides faulty products to the customers, then it has assumed that company breaches their duty to care. The verdict given in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 case is the evidence of this aspect. The level of duty to care is dependent on several factors which are as highlighted below (Davenport and Parker, 2014). Possibility to being injured Nature of injury incurred to the customer Risk associated with the damage The person who has suffered due to the breach of duty is termed as plaintiff and the company which has breached their duty to care is termed as defendant. Plaintiff has the legal rights to claim for the damages from defendant or to sue the defendant for breaching of duty. However, it is essential that plaintiff has sufficient evidences to prove the damages on the account of breach of duty. It is because the honorable court would take a note of duty to care, breach of duty and incurred damages before announcing the judgment (Gibson and Fraser, 2014). It is noteworthy that if the incurred damages can be prevented by any type of measures that could be taken by the plaintiff, then in such cases the plaintiff cannot claim for the damages. Moreover, as per tort of negligence only foreseeable damages would be taken into consideration. In this scenario, egg shell rule would be an imperative aspect which limits the obligation of the defendant in case of any initial damages incurred on the plaintiff. Nader v Urban Transit Authority of NSW(1985) 2 NSWLR 501 case is the witness of this aspect (Lindgren, 2011). When the plaintiff does not take necessary steps to prevent the possibility of any harm, then the incurred injury or harm would be called under contributory negligence. In this case, the plaintiff is liable to claim for damages from defendant based on his/her contribution for the injury as highlighted in the judgment given in Maureen Townsend v Phillip ODonnell [2016] NSWCA 288 case (Harvey, 2009). Application It is apparent from the given facts that Mulan has purchased a power drill from MacTools Ltd. It indicates that duty to care is applicable here on MacTools Ltd to their customer Mulan. He does not use it and without unboxing, he has extended this drill to his neighbor Aurora. Also, it has been mentioned in the safety warning that the machine should not be used without wearing protective goggles. It can be seen that as the product is extended to Aurora and therefore, the duty to care of the company would also be extended to Aurora. Aurora does not read the safety instructions and she does not wear safety goggles. Also, she has used the drill machine for about ten minutes. In between of using the machine, the drill machine catches fire and as a result of this drill machine result explosion. It is apparent from the case study that MacTools Ltd was aware that if the power drill machine is used for more than 5 minute at a stretch, than it can catch fire and can result in severe explosion. However, MacTools Ltd does not inform this to customer Mulan because the recall of the machine would result in a cost $500,000. It can be said that it is duty of MacTools to inform the customers that the threshold limit to use the machine is five minute but they did not inform it and hence, it results in breach of duty. Aurora has lost her one eye due this explosion. It would be fair to conclude that due to breach of duty to care on the part of MacTools Ltd, Aurora has lost her eye but she also contributed in the injury because if she used the safety goggles, then there is a possibility that she would not have damaged her eye. Hence, she can claim for damages but the amount would be decided after taking the note of contributory negligence of Aurora. Additionally, the electric power supply has been interrupted and power goes off for some time due to this fault in the drill machine and explosion. Jessie is a glass vase maker who has been making a vase with worth of $1,000 gets distur bed due to this sudden power off. Also, the vase was shattered. This is the case of egg shell rule and would not be termed as initial harm and hence, Jessie would not liable to claim for any damages. Conclusion It can be concluded based on the above analysis that MacTools Ltd has duty to care towards their customers. However, company does not inform regarding the fault in the machine and hence, the explosion incurred. Further, Auroras loss of eye would be come under the contributory negligence because she does not wear safety goggles which have been mentioned in the safety warning sheet. Therefore, she can claim for the damages from MacTools but the compensation amount would be dependent based on level of contributory negligence. Also, Jessie cannot recover any amount from MacTools Ltd because the loss (shattered) of vase is not considered as the initial injury as per the provisions of egg shell rule. Reference Davenport, S. and Parker, D. (2014). Business Law in Australia, 2nd ed, Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. Edlin, D. (2007). Common law theory, 4th ed, Cambridge: University Press Cambridge. Gibson, A. and Fraser, D. (2014). Business Law, 8th ed, Sydney: Pearson Publications. Harvey, C. (2009). Foundations of Australian law, 2nd ed, Prahran, Vic.: Tilde University Press. Lindgren, KE. (2011). Vermeesch and Lindgren's Business Law of Australia, 12th ed, Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. Case Laws: Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 AC 522 Maureen Townsend v Phillip ODonnell [2016] NSWCA 288 Nader v Urban Transit Authority of NSW(1985) 2 NSWLR 501