blog




  • Essay / Taru Power Plant Case Study - 981

    However, although the damage to the power plant and the injuries suffered by the employee are causally linked to the negligent action, the penalty payment to Steel Smelting Ltd (SSL) is not directly related. to the negligent action of TPS. Even if the negligent act did not occur, TPS may be able to fulfill its obligation to SSL, but this is not final. Obviously, when performing a contract you must face certain risks, these risks should not be easily transferred to a third party due to their negligence. It is the responsibility of TPS to ensure that there will be no power outage and it must mitigate this risk by all means. By relying solely on Equipment J, TPS accepts the risk and even if the power explosion occurs, it must find a way to resolve the problem, instead of relying on compensation for tort of negligence. Furthermore, imposing a duty of care for such damages, in this case, exposes the defendant to indeterminate liability, which is not reasonable. In relation to the employee personal injury claim, due to the ACC TPS was stripped of the right to seek payment in respect of a negligent act causing personal injury.