Introduction

               The duty of care under tort law is a statutory accountability that is inflicted on a person necessitating obedience to a standard of rational care. The exercise of the standard of reasonable care is anticipated while conducting any deeds that might predictably injure others. The said requisites are regarded as a crucial factor to prove the claim of negligence. In the negligence claim, the claimant must establish that the defendant owes a duty to take reasonable care by law and the opposite party has contravened the same. Thus the tortfeasor is liable to damages for the harm that causes due to the negligent act of him. Additionally, the duty of care may be regarded as a validation of social arrangements that impose accountability held by the person towards another in the community. Thus when the person is injured by the actions of others he possesses legal entitlements to pursue damages for such harm. The four elements are duty, breach of care, causation, damages. The case of Chris v. Dusty explores whether Dusty is guilty of negligent conduct under the purview of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

Discussion

               The issue involves in Chris v. Dusty Duchess case is as follows. The first issue is whether the defendant had owe duty to exercise reasonable care and contravened their obligation over the negligence tort towards the claimant. The second one is whether there is a prevalence of duty of care, contravention of the said duty, causation, and compensation that is required to be proved for the negligence claim. As with the negligence under the common law principles, to prove negligence under the purview of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), a claimant must substantiate that the opposite party owes a duty and breach that duty resulting in damage. Section 50 of the statute describes the reasonability of care in a situation wherein the tortfeasor is actual in a manner that is not expected that the prudent person would act in similar circumstances. Causation has been the concern of cautious assessment by the appellate court of Australia in the contemporary era in Woolworths v. Strong [2010] and Amaca & Ors v. Ellis [2010] HCA 5. The issue of causation engages two issues. The first issue is the implementation of “but for” assessment. The second issue is whether the opposite party is in statute accountable for compensation which hos negligent act has conducted some portion in generating.

               Section 27 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) mental harm implies impairment of the psychological condition of a person. The term negligence implies miscarriage to practice reasonable skill and care. Section 31 of the said act facilitates that the tortfeasor is only accountable for a recognized mental impairment. There is no accountability to contribute damage concerning pure psychological impairment impacting from negligent care except the injury encompass a mentioned mental illness. Moreover, Section 32 necessitates that the test of foreseeability is gratified concerning a duty to undertake reasonable care to prevail. Importantly, Section 32 entails that an individual does not possess an obligation to another to not cause that individual psychological illness except the opposite party ought to have predicted that an individual of standard fortitude might, in the situation of the instance, distress a recognized mental harm in case standard care were not exercised as specified in Tame v. New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317and Annetts & Anor v. Australian Stations Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 104.

               By close examination of the case, it has been observed that Chris and Ben determined to take a ten-day voyage by Dusty Duchess (cruise ship). The cruise area renowned for infected virus and in the period February 2020, the earthy Empress was found an outbreak of the virus. The experts of public health worldwide were instructing that the optimum means of containing the infection were social distancing, hand washing. Towards the conclusion of the trip, bot of them initiated to feel unwell, consequently cruise enterprise contacted the claimant informing them to self-isolate. The reason stated by the cruise company is that the passengers who are returning from Australia might be contaminated with the virus. Eventually, Ben sought metal assistance and was expressed that he was distressing from stress disorder and anxiety. Chris recovered from the sickness, however, incurred a significant loss or injury. Thus from by intense evaluation of the situation and taking in regard the relevant law, it is mentioned that Dusty is guilty of negligence. As Dutch owes a duty of care to maintain the safety of all passengers during the pandemic situation. The company miscarried to exercise the duty resulting in harm or injury of the claimant. The claim is maintainable under the ambit of the law of negligence as enumerated in the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002.

               The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) UHKL 100 also recognized as “snail in the bottle case” is treated as a relevant decision under Western law. the pronouncement created the tortious act under civil law of negligence and obliged trade to confirm a duty of reasonable care to their consumers. In this case, the manufacturers owe a statutory obligation to ultimate customers of their goods in case it is not probable for deficiency to be recognized before the products are obtained.

               in the case decision of Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a landmark case on the duty of reasonable care under the law of negligence. The House observing the Appellate Court establish a three-fold examination. For an obligation of care to evolve in negligence injury should be reasonably predictable as an impact of the conduct of the defendant as recognized in the Donoghue case. The distinct parties should be in association with proximity and should be just, reasonable and fair to inflict liability. 

Conclusion

           Thus it can be inferred, that Duck is accountable under the duty of care as enumerated in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). As Dusty fails to exercise a duty to exercise rational care he is accountable for the harm that is sustained by the claimant 

Bibliography

Books & Articles

Ryan, Christopher James, Sascha Callaghan, and Matthew Large. “The importance of least restrictive care: the clinical implications of a recent High Court decision on negligence.” (2015) Australasian Psychiatry 23.4 415-417.

Badenoch‐Jones, E. K., Benjamin P. White, and A. J. Lynham. “The Australian litigation landscape–oral and maxillofacial surgery and general dentistry (oral surgery procedures): an analysis of litigation cases.” (2016) Australian dental journal 61.3 310-316.

Bell-James, Justine, and Kit Barker. “Public Authority Liability for Negligence in the Post-IPP Era: Sceptical Reflections on the Policy Defence.” (2016) Melb. UL Rev. 40 1.

Addicott, Jeffrey F. “Enhancing Cybersecurity in the Private Sector by Means of Civil Liability Lawsuits-The Connie Francis Effect.” (2016) U. Rich. L. Rev. 51 857.

Case laws

Tame v. New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317

Annetts & Anor v. Australian Stations Pty Ltd [2000]

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) UHKL 100

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2

Legislation

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW),