Can the Appellants be held partly liable for damage to the barge and for the lost cargo by not having an attendant aboard the barge when it broke free from the pier.
There is no general rule to determine when the absence of an attendant will make the owner of the barge liable for injuries to other vessels if the barge breaks away from her moorings
If (Burden < Cost of Injury × Probability of occurrence), then the accused will not have met the standard of care required.
The two issues in this case are:
1. Can the defendant be held negligent in failing to promptly stop his car?
2. Can the plaintiff be held to the same standard of care commonly exercised by the ordinary boy of his age?
A boy of seven is not held to the same standard of care in self protection as a mature man. When considering his contributory negligence the standard is the degree of care commonly exercised by the ordinary boy of his age and maturity.
Can the defendant be held liable for not acting reasonably with respect to objective standard of intelligence?
The standard for negligence is an objective one. One has behaved negligently if he has acted in a way contrary to how a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances.
Did the auditors/accountants owe a duty of care to the existing share holders or the future investors?
The Caparo Test:
1. Foreseeability- reasonably foreseeable that claimant might be injured if defendant is negligent.
2. Proximity- closeness
3. Fair, just and reasonable- Position of defendant, Impact on the law, public policy
Did the manufacturer owe any duty of care even with the absence of contractual relations?
One must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure one's neighbour. A neighbour is one who is so closely and directly affected by one's act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when one is directing their mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.