Civil Liability Act 2003

Part (A)

Issue

Whether Paul being hit on the face by Wayne foreseeable before Wayne decided to hit the ball. Was Wayne having thought that he might hit, and he didn’t care while he was hitting the ball? Whether Paul will be successful in proving Wayne’s neglectful actions.

Law

According to the Civil Liability Act 2003(Qld) section 9, it states that the General standard of care.

Negligence includes any personal injury claims which describes the wrongful act or omission of other party which results into damage or injury. A person can be known as negligent if the person has not taken precautions before the loss damage or injury which has made to the injured that he could foresee it.

The three main principles for law of negligence are:

(1) There is duty of care owed by the at-fault party to the injured party.

(2) The duty of care has been breached by the actions of the fault party or the failure to act.

(3) The breach of duty of care by the at-fault party has resulted into the loss and damaged claimed by the injured party. (The Personal Injury Lawyers , n.d.)

Application

According to the civil liability act of 2003(QLD) section 9 which states the protection of a person’s civil from a person’s act. On application of the above-mentioned rules and with reference to the Pollard vs. Trued case it can be said that Paul will be successful if he brings legal proceedings against Wayne. Wayne has hit Paul by his action of playing golf without taking into consideration that Paul was heading towards where he was playing although he could see Paul which clearly explains that he has breached the duty of care though the risk was foreseeable.

According to the Civil Liability Act of 2003(Qld) section 9, the General standard of care. As a result, on applying the above law and when referring to the Pollard v Trude (2008) case it can be said that Paul can be successful in making allegations. The allegations of negligence can be seen here as Wayne had hit the ball without warning Paul that he was about to hit. Wayne has breached the duty of care and the risk was foreseeable.

Conclusion

As a result, Paul can bring legal proceedings against Wayne and considering all the principles it was negligent actions by Wayne to hit Paul and there being breach of duty by Wayne in that circumstance.

Part (B)

Issue

Paul was hit on the face and suffered injury. In context to this he made an argue with the Golf Club that the Club should have safety measures for its