In This Case
-
Upload
michelle-chow -
Category
Documents
-
view
109 -
download
3
Transcript of In This Case
![Page 1: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The first case, Mack has given certain advised in some shares to Ali and Lim
in a newly opened seafood restaurant. Mack is a stock broker and also a
professional, he given advice to Ali and Lim to buy Big Bank and World
Brothers Bank Bhd share had potential to rise 20%. Ali and Lim invested
RM200,000 with Mack the next day.
Unfortunately Mack’s advice did not work, the share has dive 60% on world
economic crisis and the two banks declared insolvent. Lim and Ali have lost
their investment. The question is to determine whether Lim and Ali had a
care on negligence against Mack.
In this case, it is advised that Lim and Ali may not succeed in suing Mack, a
stock broker for damages allegedly caused by the world economic crisis
based on the grounds of professional negligence. Lim and Ali would need to
prove:
(i) Duty of Care
(ii) Breach of Duty
(iii) Damages suffered as a result of the breach and not remote
The duty of care owed by a professional (e.g. a stock broker) to his clients is
stated in Lamphier v. Phipos that a professional undertakes to bring fair,
reasonable and competent degree of care and skill. Here, the negligence is
judged by the test of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to
have that special skill. He need not posses the highest expert skill.
![Page 2: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
For breach of duty and damages, Lim and Ali have to prove that there is a
breach and damages cause by the defendant is not remote by the breach of
duty.
In my opinion, the amount of RM 200,000 is not a small amount, so the
damages that caused by Ali is remote. Ali also realized that when he gave
the advice, Ali and Lim took it seriously and invested with him the next day.
In this situation, there is a trust between Mack and, Lim and Ali so there is a
breach of duty occurred.
In professional negligence the following additional elements also need to be
proven by Lim and Ali as laid down in:
(a) The negligence had been committed in the ordinary course of business
or professional affairs.
(b)One person must have sought information or advice from another. The
person need not necessarily be the professional’s client. The duty of
care includes giving of negligent information and statements (e.g. fail
in advic
(c) The person who gave the information or advice was not under a
contractual or fiduciary obligation to give the information or advice.
(d)The information or advice must have been given in circumstances in
which a reasonable man so asked would know that he was being
trusted or that his skill or judgment was being relied upon- Hedley
Byrne v. Heller.
(e) The person asked for this information or advice chose to give that
information or advice. There was no disclaimer or a clear qualification
which shows that the giver was not accepting responsibility.
![Page 3: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The negligence had been committed in the ordinary course of business or
professional affairs. Even though, in the scene may look inappropriate to do
business, but Mack has the intention to continue his long conversation about
his market analysis that showed in the share market will rise and
recommended two counters namely, Big Bank Bhd and World Brothers
Bank Bhd’s share had potential to raise 20%. Besides that, he also went
along with Lim and Ali to invest the next day.
One person must have sought information or advice from another. The
person need not necessarily be the professional’s client. The duty of care
includes giving of negligent information and statements (e.g. fail in advice)
In the situation, Mack met his old friends, Lim and Ali in a newly open
seafood restaurant. They started out with a conversation on the market
economy which leads Mack recommend two counters to them. From here
there is an exist of Mack giving the advice to them and it turns out his advice
does not work. But in defences, Mack may say that Lim and Ali is not his
clients. As seen earlier, if a professional person provides information or a
client but recognized and intends that such information or advice is wrong
and negligently given, liability will result to the non-client for damage
therefore caused. So there is an existing of fail in advice, and negligent of
information.
The person who gave the information or advice was not under a contractual
or fiduciary obligation to give the information or advice. In this situation,
Lim and Ali met Mack in a seafood restaurant when they were having the
conversation.
![Page 4: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The information or advice must have been given in circumstances in
which a reasonable man so asked would know that he was being trusted
or that his skill or judgment was being relied upon- Hedley Byrne v.
Heller. In this situation, Mack was awared that he was being trusted and
relied on. Though casual conversation may not be applied to Hedley
Byrne like the example case given Fish v. Kelly where a solicitor met a
friend in a train and casually gave him advice on a point of law, it was
held that the duty of care is not apply. But this situation is different, Lim
and Ali invested together with Mack. Which concludes that Mack has the
intention and know he was relied on that’s why he followed. Though in
defenses, Mack may say this is just a casual conversation. At the same
time, this also an impromptu opinion from Lim and Ali, they did not
even do any research on the market economy and straight away invested
with Mack the next day.
The person asked for this information or advice chose to give that
information or advice. There was no disclaimer or a clear qualification
which shows that the giver was not accepting responsibility. In this
situation, Mack was the one who chose to give that advice and there was
no clear disclaimer or clear qualification that he is not accepting the
responsibility. The market analysis is the clear evidence that showed that
he was really interested to have Lim and Ali into his business.
![Page 5: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The cases on professional negligence include Manjit Singh s/o Gurdial
Singh v. R. K. Nathan, Neogh Soo Oh & Ors. v. G. Rethinasamy,and Bank
Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd. V. Yeoh Ho Huat.
Applying the case of Neogh Soo Oh & Ors. v. G. Rethinasamy, it is clear
that Mack, the defendant has failed in his duty to use reasonable care and
skill in giving his advice and taking such action as the facts of this
particular case demanded of a normally competent and careful
practitioner here. Apart from a research analysis about the share market,
like other normally stock broker should have also done a research on the
economy stability and any other factors that may affect the share market.
Therefore in my opinion, He was therefore liable to compensate his
clients for the loss caused by his breach of contractual duty as their stock
broker.
He was also liable in tort; quite independent of contract, as a professional
man professing special skill who gives assistance to another, and he owed
a duty of care to that person who to his knowledge relied on his skill. Lim
and Ali,’s reliance on the advice that Mack given as a professional stock
broker had resulted Lim and Ali lost RM200,000 in their investment.
![Page 6: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The second case is on Negligence. As, Mack’s family were having
dinner, Mack’s daughter screamed as she found a dead lizard in her fried
rice. Mack complained to the manager and her daughter was sick for one
week. Mack was very unhappy with the incident and intend to sue the
newly open seafood restaurant. The question is whether Mack could be
succeeding in suing the newly open seafood restaurant.
Negligence is defined in Winfield and Jolowics on Tort as ‘the breach of
a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the
defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, the ingredients of negligence are:
1. A legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise care in such
conduct of A falls within the scope of duty.
2. Breach of duty
3. Consequential damge to B.
Mack is advised to sue the newly opened seafood restaurant for
negligence, because he is most likely to succeed. This advice is supported
by the case of DONOGHUE v. STEVENSON [1932] A.C. 562. This
case law is used to prove the presence of duty of care.
That the case of DONOGHUE v. STEVENSON [1932] A.C. 562 clearly
established the tort of negligence in relation to Restaurant manager as
it set out the principle that a Restaurant manager did owe a duty to the
Mack’s Daugther.The said case is composed of specific facts upon which
the principle was founded.
![Page 7: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The test for the existence of the duty owed by the plaintiff is the
neighbour principle stated by Lord Atkin in DONOGHUE v.
STEVENSON, i.e the foresight of the reasonable man. One therefore
asks the question whether the injury to the plaintiff was reasonably
foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s acts or omission.
In my opinion, as a newly open seafood restaurant, the manager should
have make sure its subordinates have kept the restaurant clean before it is
open to serve the customer. At the same time, they did not expect that a
girl would fall sick seeing a lizard on the fried rice. Although there was
no contractual duty between Mack’s daughter, the restaurang manager
owed her a duty of take care that the restaurant food and the environment
did not contain any noxious matter and he would be liable if that duty is
broken.
The defendant must not only owe the plaintiff a duty of care, he must be
in breach of it. The test deciding whether there has been a breach of duty
laid is down in the dictum of Alderson B. in Blyth v, Birmingham
Waterworks Co. This case law tells us that negligence is the omission to
do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations
which ordinarily which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
From here, the question is who is a reasonable man? A reasonable man
has been described as the “man on the omnibus”. In other words, a
‘reasonable man’ means an ordinary man who is expected to have any
particular skill such as that posseses by a surgeon, a lawyer or a plumber
unless he is expected to have one.
![Page 8: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
In this case, the restaurant manager is expected to have the responsibility
to take care of the restaurant and to make sure everything in order under
his care if not there would not be a title called “manager” .
But at the same time, the noxious matter is a lizard, which has legs and
can crawled wherever it wants to which may cause it unexpected to
ended up in a fried rice.
Which leads to the case on Roe v. Minister of health [1954] 2 .Q.B.66,
where leads to the question of foreseeability of an event will depend on
the particular item of knowledge is to be imputed on the reasonable man.
In my opinion, it is foreseeable if the newly restaurant is clean and well
managed. A lizard could not be death if it is crawled when the food was
ready to be serve but when it is cooking , yes it will be death. The
question is, how did the lizard get into the fried rice in the first place. To
me, the restaurant must be that dirty till the lizard can crawled through
the heat.
Therefore, Mack is advised that he can sue the restaurant and might get
recover damages from the restaurant.
![Page 9: In This Case](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012310/54407265afaf9f80338b489a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)