Tort Of Negligence Case Study

Introduction
The plaintiff, Scott, who was a Custom House officer of twenty-six years standing. On 19 January 1864, the plaintiff was at the defendants’ docks and had performed his duty at the East Quay as superintendent of the weighing of goods. Mr. Lilley, his superior officer, directed the plaintiff to go from the East Quay to Spirit Quay, which he proceeded to do, leaving to pass the defendants’ warehouses in his way. Unable to find Lilley, the plaintiff inquired of a workman where he was, and was informed that he was in a warehouse. In passing from the doorway of one warehouse to the other, the plaintiff fell to the ground as six bags of sugar tumbled upon him while they were being lowered to the ground from the upper part of the warehouse.

Firstly, there must be a duty of care where it is the duty imposed upon a person to take reasonable care for his acts and omissions. The plaintiff, while on duty at the docks, received no form of warning beforehand, was injured by the six bags of sugar within the defendant’s premises. Secondly, it is the breach of duty whereby an individual owes a duty of care to others, and yet fails to perform and uphold this duty. This party may be liable for damages and negligence if his breach of duty had caused personal injury or loss to another party. The defendant has breached that form of duty by not ensuring that the walk-zone below the six bags of sugar is cordoned off, or by providing some form of warning to any individual within the defendant’s premises. Thirdly, it is the damage resulted from the breach of duty where the injury was caused by the defendant’s improper handling of the six bags of sugar. However, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence of negligence as the bags of sugar were lowered in the usual course and the plaintiff did not take proper care in passing from one warehouse to the other. The plaintiff was unable to prove the actual course of the accident and the breach of

It is a principle where negligence can be inferred and the plaintiff cannot prove its exact cause. The loss or injury would not have occurred under normal circumstances if the party have performed and upheld his duty of care. Evidence may not be present as the facts are so explicit and obvious that they would not normally occur if there were no forms of negligence present. If the defendant had upheld proper duty of care, the injury to the plaintiff would not have occurred. It is a rule of evidence which creates a presumption that a defendant acted negligently simply because a particular accident