Risk and Due Diligence of Castro v Transfield †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Risk and Due Diligence of Castro v Transfield Pty Ltd. Answer: Introduction In the given case, the primary legal issue was whether there was negligence on behalf both the appellant and the defendant. For resolving the legal issue involved in the case, the proper understanding of the term negligence is necessary. The term negligence refers to any conduct that is under-rated in accordance to the code of conduct or behavior established by any legal system, in order to protect others from any risk, harm, injury, or damage that is unreasonable. Any person is said to have acted in negligence if that person has failed to perform any certain conduct or behavior that any prudent person would have conducted under like circumstances. Case Reference The given caselaw is extracted from the case of Castro v Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd. (57 ALJR 619) 1984. In the given the appellant was Castro, a worker of the Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd, which is the defendant. In the given case, a permanent disability occurred to Castro when he was involved in carrying an oxygen bottle as heavy as approximately 146 lbs. Castro is reported to have the practice of carrying such heavy bottles during the course of his work. The given case also provides that the Company failed to provide adequate circumstances for using any trolley to move such heavy bottles (Graetz Franks 2013). Legal Issues in the given Case There are two primary points of argument in the given case. The legal issues or the point of argument in the given case is as follows: whether the defendant is liable for acting negligently for not providing adequate circumstances for using trolleys in moving heavy oxygen bottles? whether the appellant is liable for acting negligently by carrying such a heavy bottle by himself and taking the assistance of any other employee? (Alexander, 2015) Arguments in favor of the Appellant The appellant, Castro has brought the allegations of negligence on the part of the Company for not providing proper working circumstances. It is establishedlaw that the duty, responsibility and obligation of maintaining, initiating and providing safe workplace or safe structure of work lies on the part of the employer and not the employee. The employee, who is affected by the absence of workplace safety, is regarded as a victim who can claim damage against his employer in the court of law. This is what happened in the case of Castro (Stewart Stuhmcke 2014). The given clearly states that the Company failed to provide that circumstance, where trolleys could be used to carry very heavy bottles of oxygen. Therefore, the established law could hold the Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd Company held liable failing to make arrangements of trolleys for their employees, for carrying heavy oxygen bottles. The established obligation or responsibility does not include any hypothetical reasonability on th e part of the employee that he is under any to perceive any potential risk of injury or damage. The mere possibility of any real risk is sufficient (Barker et al., 2012). Arguments in favor of the Defendant In the Court of law, the defendant Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd Company, used the plea against the charge of negligence brought against by the appellant Castro that oxygen bottle was too heavy for any reasonable person to carry by himself. The Company also remarked that Castro could have taken the assistance of another employee to carry such heavy bottle rather than carry it by himself. The defendant can also state that the appellant was an experienced worker. The task that he was conducting was no new to him (Taylor, 2014). Castro was in charge of the entire procedure of carrying the oxygen bottles, and he could have easily given directions to others for helping him (Sage, 2015). Castro could also have opted for the assistance of a forklift driver to help him. The load of 146 lbs is by obvious reasons too heavy for any person to lift alone. The oxygen bottle was also of an awkward shape and size. The process of lifting involved by Castro was itself dangerous and awkward and was in contr ary to the suggestions and instructions that are forwarded by the Company towards their employees in case of lifting heavy oxygen bottles. If Castro would have acted in accordance with the recommendations and suggestions of the Company, then he would have been able to avoid the risk of back injury and in a way his physical disability. The established law makes a consideration of several elements in judging whether any person has acted in accordance with any reasonable person, who would have acted in the like circumstances. The elements are experience, knowledge, perception and experience. Therefore, in the given case all the mentioned elements are present. The defendant could have used the plea that the appellant Castro has experience as well as knowledge of the work. Castro should also have the perception that lifting such heavy materials may cause him damage (Roodman, 2012). Conclusion From the detailed discussion of the facts of the case and the established law, the due diligence falls on the part of the Company. The Company is directly responsible for its non-failure to comply with its responsibility to provide its employees the favorable environment of working. The Company was under the obligation to provide to their employees the adequate working environment necessary for their working. In the given case, the Company can be held liable for the complying the criterions that cause the act of negligence (Gibson et al., 2013). The criterions that are needed for the occurrence of the act of negligence are duty to take care, breach of that duty, loss or damage caused by any other party due to the breach of the duty. In the given case, the defendant, Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd Company has committed the offense of negligence because it has failed to comply with its duty of taking care of employees. The breach of duty of the Company to take care of its employees and provide favorable environment for working has to lead to the damage or injury of its employee Castro, in the form of permanent disability. References Alexander, K. (2015). Tort Liability for Ratings of Structured Securities Under English Law.University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper, (2015-06). Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., Trindade, F. (2012).The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Gibson, A., Richards, B., Blay, S. (2013).Torts Law in Principle. Law Book Company. Graetz, G., Franks, D. M. (2013). Incorporating human rights into the corporate domain: due diligence, impact assessment and integrated risk management.Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,31(2), 97-106. Roodman, D. (2012).Due diligence: An impertinent inquiry into microfinance. CGD Books. Sage, A. P. (2015).Risk modeling, assessment, and management. Y. Y. Haimes (Ed.). John Wiley Sons. Stewart, P., Stuhmcke, A. (2014). High Court Negligence Cases 200010. Taylor, M. B. (2014). Due Diligence: A Compliance Standard for Responsible European Companies.European Company Law,11(2).