Mark v Citic (NEGLIGENCE PHYSICAL HARM)
Issue : Can Mark’s wife sue Citic for negligence?
Rules & Application :
Modern law of negligence was leaded by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson where The House of Lords provided 3 elements of a negligence action: duty, breach, damage.
1. Did Citic owe Mark a duty of care?
Reasonable Foreseeable Test
Citic employed Mark as its employee and it is reasonably forseeable that Citic ensure a safe work evironment. If Citic did not tell Mark about the tobron that could cause explosion if it has contact with water, therefore, it is reasonably forseeable that Mark would be injured or dead- Donoghue v Stevenson
2. Is there any breach of duty of care by Citic to Mark?
a. Reasonable Person Test
Being a reasonable person, Citic should take reasonable care by informing their employees about the explotion of Tobron if it contacts with water. In this case, there was a breach of duty of care as they did not exercise the care of reasonable person ought to have taken to prevent that risk - McPherson v Eaton
b. Weighting Test - Wyong Shire Council v Shirt - s48 Wrong Acts 1958
1. Magnitude of risk
The magnitude of the risk is very high because if the tobron has contact with water, it will cause explosion which can result to Mark’s death.
2. Expense of eliminating the risk
There is no expense,difficulty or inconvinience All Citic has to do is just to inform their employees.
3. Probability of risk
The probalitiy that Mark will get injured or death because Citic did not tell Mark about tobron that could cause explosion if it has a contact with water is high.
3. Did Citic cause the death of Mark?
a. Causation Test – to obatain damages Mark must establish that the negligence caused the damage.
But for the action of Citic by telling Mark about explosion that tobron could caused if contacts with water, Mark would not have died - Chapel v Hart
b. Remoteness Test
The death must not be too remote. In this case, the explotion is a direct consequences of Citic for not informing the danger of tobron and accidently it contacts with water. It is reasonably foreseeable that the death of Mark is reasonably forseeable and not too remote as the result of the explotion –
The Wagon Mound No. 2
4. Citic may have defence against Mark. The defences are:
a. Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Mark did not knowingly and willingly accept the risk of the explotion. Therefore, he did not voluntary accept the risk - Moore v Woodforth
b. Contributory Negligence
Mark while washing the bottle accidently dropped the tobron and came into contact with water. Mark failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, and that failure contribute to his death. Therefore, the damages and liability will be apportioned (March v Starmare).
Mitigate Losses
Mark must take step in reducing his losses from the breach but in this case, Mark cannot mitigate because he had already dead.
Conclusion :
Mark’s wife can sue Citic for negligence, but the damages and liablity will be apportioned.

Priscilla v Angela (NEGLIGENCE PHYSICAL HARM)
Issue : Can Priscilla sue Angela for damage in relation to the tort of negligence act of carelessly apply the cosmetic with a fragnance?
Modern law of negligence was leaded by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson where The House of Lords provided 3 elements of a negligence action: duty, breach, damage.
Rules & Application:
1. Did Angela owe Priscilla a duty of care?
Reasonable Forseeable Test
Angela did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which Angela can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure Priscilla. Angela should provide non-fragnance cosmetic. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable if Angela apply a fragnance cosmetic, Priscilla would be injured (Donoghue v Stevenson).
2. Was there a breach of duty of care by Angela?
a. Reasonable Person Test
Being a reasonable person, Angela should take reasonable care not to use the fragnance cosmetic. In this case, there was a breach of duty of care as she