Considering the pleas of the plaintiff, it has been observed that the present case is based on the law of negligence, particularly part of the Tort law (Foley & Christensen, 2016). Plaintiff had made certain claims in his plaint and asked for damage from the present defendant. The defendant is accepting the contention made by the plaintiff in paragraph number 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint. Defendant had no knowledge regarding the truthfulness of the statement mentioned in point number 4. It has been mentioned by the plaintiff that a party and it is not possible for defendant to keep an eye on every invitee. It is an admitted fact by the defendant that injury has been sustained to the plaintiff. However, it is denied that defendant is liable for that and as plaintiff was also get shock, therefore, it can be stated that the happening was not foreseeable. It can be stated that the allegations made by the plaintiff were insignificant in nature. Regarding the contention made in point number 6, defendant accepts that he owed a duty to the plaintiff, but the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not the fault of the defendant and he personally was not liable for that. Regarding the point 7, it can be said that the principle of contributory negligence will apply in this case, as plaintiff was also consumed alcohol having the knowledge of risk (Barry, 2017). Therefore, based on the provision of section 5B (1) of the Civil Liability Act 2000 (NSW), it can be said that defendant is not liable for the negligence.
Barry, C. (2017). Statutory modifications of contributory negligence at common law. Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (140), 12.
Foley, M., & Christensen, M. (2016). Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).