Tort Law for Essendon Football Club- myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Write about theTort Law for Essendon Football Club. Answer: Issue According to the case study the issue is whether Essendon Football Club is liable for the health issues suffered by Nathan Howlett-Murray and his 3 year old daughter for their health issues due to the program of administering certain supplements to its professional ethics which is also known as the supplement program. Rules According to the case study the Essendon Football Club held liable for the health issues of the participants in the Australian football league sessions[1]. The football club has provided some supplement program which causes health and safety issues of the footballers and Nathan Howlett-Murray who was suffering for the health issues along with his 3 years old daughter. Therefore it is a case of negligence where the football club has breach their duty of care and breached the rules of duty of care[2]. It is a case of breach of duty of care due to the negligence who owns the duty towards the other person. In the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson[3] where it has been found that the person who is providing the service to the consumer has breach the duty of care while he serving the beer bottle, the plaintiff had found there is a decomposed Snail in the bottle which make her sick and therefore she claims compensation from the service provider for the breach of Duty. it is a breach of duty of the restaurant attendant who is serving the drinks[4]. The negligence has been found on the breach of the duty of care of when a person make the damages to the another person. The suffered person either got injuries or any other property damage which makes the negligence by the service provider. The negligence only occurs when the duty of care is not perform and when the duty of care breached and along with negligence also applied to the situation. In the case of Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] the duty of care has been found by the defendant who failed to provide proper service to the plaintiff where he breach the duty and cause damages to the plaintiff [5]. In the case of D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] where the court has found that plaintiff has stated that breach has occur due to the negligence of the duty of care by the employees while he was driving. However it is the beach of duty and in another case The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] it was found that the defendant was fined with penalties for breach the duty of care and occur negligence towards the plaintiff who got injuries by the defendant[6]. In another case Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] the court has been found the significance of the breach of duty of care by the defendant who cause several damages to the plaintiff due to the negligence. The plaintiff also stated in the court that she was injured at her workplace while the defendant failed to comply the duty of care towards a disable person and it cause injury and damage with the plaintiff[7]. When a breach has caused the Civil Liability Act provides the provisions in the tort law where the injured person can take the precaution against the damage if any negligence occur by the defendant. In another case Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999)[8] the court describe the duty of care of the employment where defendant has failed to satisfy the terms of duty of care. Therefore the negligence occurs and cause damage to the plaintiff. According to the tort law of negligence the plaintiff who suffered the damage can claim the compensation for the negligence of duty of care towards the service provider[9]. Here according to the case study the football club arranged for the supplement program and participation on that program, footballers affected where they suffered loss of sponsorship, loss of income, emotional distress and loss of reputation which are the highly cause damages for the career of the players. Here Nathan Howlett-Murray has claimed that due to this supplement program he and hi s 3 years old daughter also suffered several health issues. Therefore he can claim the damage according to the civil liability act for breach of the duty of the care by the Essendon Football Club [10]. Application When the negligence occurs due to the breach of duty of care by the defendant as per the law of tort it should prove the elements of the negligence for the duty of care. Negligence is defined as exercise of acts where it failed according to the appropriate and ethical rules of the specified circumstances. The law of torts establishes the terms of negligence where it must cause any harm for failing the carelessness of that particular circumstances[11]. Therefore it is the duty of the people that they must not exercise negligence which make a potential harm to another person or any property. Due to the negligence when the plaintiff suffers any loss he or she may able to sue the defendant for the damages and claim the compensation for the harm due to the negligent. In damage any loss can occur which includes physical injury, any harm to the property or any psychiatric illness or any economic loss[12]. The essential terms or elements of the negligence our duty of care breach of Duty causing fat proximate cause and damages. Those are: Duty or duty of care is one of the important terms in negligence. When the defendant owned the duty of care towards the plaintiff then according to the law of tort there should be a recognized relationship will be established between the defendant and plaintiff and the defendant is obliged to the duty of care[13]. Therefore the duty of care can be determined by anybody who is providing any act of services to another person and the duty always establishes under a particular set of circumstances towards the plaintiff by the defendant. When a negligent occurs, the courts always try to find such duty which has establishes the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff[14]. For example if the dependent loading a bags of vegetables into a truck and suddenly he strike with one child with one of the back then the defendant instantly owned the duty to the child because when the defendant loading the bags with vegetables he is performing the duty of care to handling the bags of vegetables with proper care at the presence of the child. Therefore the existence of the reasonable duty of care should be established and the court also likes to find the relation between the child and the defendant who owned a duty to the child. However it is also mention that as it was a private property of the defendant and he has no knowledge about the presence of the child who was trespassing his property if any accident occur on that time the court will find less that whether the defendant owned or duty or not[15]. The breach of duty of care only occurs when the defendant is liable for breach the duty which he has owns to the plaintiff. When the defendant has failed to satisfy the term of duty of care then the breach occur. In the breach of duty of care most of the time the defendant is knowingly do the act with the substantial clauses or risk or loss to the plaintiff and breach the duty. Therefore when they fails to know about the substantial risk of loss towards the plaintiff for the active breach of duty of care then according to the tort it will make the negligence. In the case of McHale v Watson [1966] the court has found that the defendant owned a standard of duty of care towards the children where a 9 years old girl was hurt forcefully with a short metal rod by a 12 year old girl which makes the girl blinded in one eye. Therefore in this case the court has found that the 12 year old child has make the harm to the 9 year old child but she has no knowledge about the cause of accident because she was not cross the stage of development where she was on the duty of care[16]. Another term in negligence case is causes in fact where the plaintiff should prove the cause of the injury which has done by the defendant. The causes in fact define that the plaintiff should establish such statement that if the defendant did not involve in the actions then the plaintiff would not have any injuries or harm. Therefore according to the example of the defendant where he owns a duty while he is loading the truck with the bag of vegetables. The defendant has stopped his actions while he identify a child is near to him. Therefore the defendant alertness of moving the vegetable bags not cause any harm to the child. Therefore when the plaintiff held liable to the defendant for the negligence for the loss or damage it is necessary to prove the cause of the substantial damage of the plaintiff. When defendant owned the duty of care and while he breaches the duty and causes the injury or any loss it is necessary to prove the actual cause of breach of Duty he is the reason for the injury or damage or any loss by the plaintiff[17]. The proximate cause is related with the defendants responsibilities in the negligence. While proving the actual cause of injury or damage by the defendant the plaintiff needs to prove the actual reasons. However in the negligence cases the defendant only held responsible for harms or loss which has been occurred due to his actions. If any damage occur totally outside of the scope of the risk then plaintiff never able to prove the cause of damage which is known as proximate cause. The legal area of remoteness or position should be not too remote or not a proximate cause. If any harm occur for any other reason along with dependent action towards the plaintiff then it is necessary that the plaintiff will only held liable the defendant for that only clause of injuries or damages[18]. In the part of damages it is necessary to establish the facts where the defendant has intentionally caused the damage to the plaintiff. In the cases of negligence the harm only occurs according to the action of the defendant. If there is a breach of Duty establishes and that breach cause pecuniary injury to the plaintiff then it cause the damage and if the negligence occurs mistakenly by the defendant then it will be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the cause of the harm of the plaintiff[19]. In the law of tort the damage of the plaintiff could be effected as physical, economic or both which make the loss of personal injury or reputational damages. It will also recognize as negligence. The emotional distress is also a part of tort due to the injury or any economic loss the plaintiff can face the emotional distress however it is recoverable. In the law of tort the damages is recognized as a monetary loss or monetary value where the ham or loss occurs for the negligence by the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff need to prove the area of facts where due to the negligence, the defendant make the damages to the plaintiff which is monetary loss and in that matter it also possible to recover the economic loss. If the plaintiff successfully established effects where he is suffering from monitory loss then it is possible to clean the damages from the defendant and it can be claimed due to the loss for the negligence. According to the case study Essendon Football Club has engaged a program of administering certain supplement to its professional athletes where it has been found that this football club has reached the world anti-doping authoritys requirements. Therefore due to the breach of the occupational health and safety laws in Victoria the court has find $200,000 as the compensation of the beach of Duty. The football players have suffered loss of sponsorships. Loss of income, emotional distress and loss of reputation[20]. However one of the players Nathan Howlett-Murray make allegation against Essendon Football Club for the health issues suffered by himself and his 3 years old daughter where he mentioned that due to the supplement program he and her daughter is suffering the health issues. Therefore the Essendon Football Club has breach the duty of care because when the players are playing under this football club, it is the duty of the Essendon Football Club that they should take care about t he players while they are going to participate in Australian football league season. However it has been found that it is a case of breach of duty of care by negligence of the Essendon Football Club[21]. Conclusion According to the case study it has been found that the Football club has breached the duty of care toward Nathan Howlett-Murray and her daughter who are suffered by the health issues. Now the Essendon Football Club is bound to pay the compensation to him for the damages which he has suffered along with her daughter[22]. Reference Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999) D'Arcy v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] Donoghue vs. Stevenson Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). Gray, A., 2016. Liability of police in negligence: a comparative analysis. Tort Law Review, 24(1), pp.34-62. Stewart, P. and Stuhmcke, A., 2014. High Court Negligence Cases 200010. Stokes v House With No Steps [2016], Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182 The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] McHALE v. WATSON [1966] HCA 13; (1966) 115 CLR 199 Greenfield, S., 2016. Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different Jurisdictions, Different Approaches?.Staps, (4), pp.87-96. Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016.Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses(Vol. 1). California Torts. Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity Atkin, L., 1932. Donoghue v Stevenson. AC, 562, p.580. Dobbs, D.B., 2001. The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group.