Tort of negligence sample essay

Tuesday, 9 June 2015.

“Critical” large companies are widespread in Australia. Such debris leads to numerous losses for the respective shareholders, in particular for third parties. In such cases, the game is also a regular scenario, and none of the auditors is faced with third-party claims of professional negligence. Claims are expensive for auditors because of insurance payments, and therefore the application of the legislation on the basis of negligence by auditors in the country

negligence also helps the court prove the violation and the existence of a duty of caution in handling such cases. Policy review also plays a key role in decision-making. That meant normative thinking in which the court applied the logic to the rights of individuals and more specifically to any new development. As the bastion of negligence remains a new one, many strategies are still being considered when they are applied

This is based on the fact that responsibility for negligence is a broad concept without any meaning. In addition, many tests could be carried out to determine the existence of actual elements and the ability to anticipate them. The proximity of the defendant and the plaintiff are also a problem in such cases. Thus, the policy allows the court to accept reasonable responsibility and act as it sees fit. This ultimately helps to determine the legal obligations of the defendant

Small delicts can be diverse, ranging from government, education, business and medical institutions.  Many cases have been dealt with in the past by the High Court of Australia. These cases may include the understanding of the work of such tort. For example, the Catanch v Melchior (2003) HCA 38 includes negligence in the medical environment

In this case, Dr. Kattanach received a request for the plaintiff to perform bandages because she did not want another child to be due to financial factors. The defendant did not function on the plaintiff’s second emergency handset as a result of the assumptions. She was conceived, so she sued the doctor for negligence. The doctor was found guilty and paid for the consortia, the pregnancy, and the cost of the child’s maintenance and birth

The decision was based on the negligence of the doctor, who was obliged to explain to his parents that he still exists

Thus, the award of compensation for damage was an approximation and a medal of more than US$ 210,000. In the absence of the President, Mr. In another tort of negligence, Harriton v Stephens (2006), the plaintiff did not make his claim of a fruitful illegal life. The complainant, Harriton, sued his mother in court for incorrect pregnancy counselling when she was in paging with her

Her mother was infected with the rubella virus, and at the same time she gave birth to a child with a disability of Harriton. For this reason, Harriton felt that the medical officer was responsible for negligence, since her mother could terminate her pregnancy if she had been well informed

However, the case was closed by Judge Tim Studentz, but later he addressed the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Harriton. The court dismissed the case because termination of pregnancy was not a moral issue, and Harriton’s concept was not assigned to a doctor

These two cases are clear examples of the negligence of the use of tort in Australia. They portray the importance of evidence of the obligation to provide care, as well as the breach of duty and liability for damage before a court decision is made. This provides the basis for a case that is relevant to the negligence of the auditors

At present, the auditors are responsible for negligence. The purpose of the Act is to protect the profession of auditors by ensuring that there are sufficient audit firms to increase competition in Australia. The liability of the auditor may be classified by law of the contract, depending on the claimant. The general business right to negligence in Australia is liable only if there is a breach of an existing care duty that could lead to a loss

This guide on negligence, however, is different from what is evident in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562, the plaintiff could not sue the defendant because there was no contract between them. In this case, the plaintiff bought a bottle of ginger beer just to discover that after you drank it, the bottle was decomposed

So in this case, the plaintiff was to sue for a beer. Thus, in this case the principle of the settlement is used, according to which there is no contract between people, and each person is liable for actions taken with reasonably foreseeable negative consequences for another person. According to this principle, the obligation of care may exist even in the absence of a treaty

I therefore agree with the current negligence on the law of the auditor, as it offers the accused the opportunity to defend his case. Auditors are responsible for several standards and laws, particularly in Australia, both from the leadership and from the Government. As a result of their duties and responsibilities, there is a greater risk of liability in this area of activity

Many theories, such as the doctrine of “ depald pockets “, suggest that the auditors are in a position to pay for the insurance coverage without any problems, but this is not always the way. This further threatens the existence of a profession and a requirement of common law that requires proof of an existing place of work, damage to the breach of duty and the breach of the obligation to ensure fair justice

If the claimant is certain that there has been a breach of duty, it will not be difficult for him to provide the necessary evidence. Lack of evidence means that the auditor is innocent. Corporate female genital mutilation is the result of a variety of factors, and it is unfair to blame someone in this particular auditor. The principle of proximity should also be used in this case, as it means that the auditors are not responsible for commercial crashes

“Insignificance and non-redundant: Doctrine of law or public policy.”

Davis, Martin. “Responsibility of third party auditors for negligence.”

Grey, Alice. Harriton v Stephens: life, logic, and fictions.

Mason, JK. “Down below: McFarlane in the light of the Catanach.”

Nguyen, Weilan. and Rajapakse, Pelma. “Analysis of the liability of auditors to third parties in Australia.”

Free, Christian. “Sort Law, Policy, and High Court of Australia.”

Dell, Mark. and Downie, Chad. “comprehensive guide to legal reform in the field of tort throughout Australia.”

What you can read next