Relevant standard of proof
Main idea of negligence is about the reasonable care that needs to be exercised by the people who are in charge of the job and they have the responsibility not to present harm to the individual or customers. In order to prove that the defendant was negligent it is important that all elements of negligence are proved that have caused the damage (Blum, 2007).
Elements of action requiring proof
Five elements are required by the party to proof that defendant is guilty and needs have pay the damages. The five elements are duty to care, breach of duty; cause in fact, proximate cause and damage (Buckley and Orekant, 2003). All these five elements are proved in this case and will be discussed further.
Measures of the damage
These measures of damages are present when the liability n negligence is proved and it is based on the principle regarding compensation and how claimant has faced financial loss and needs to be compensated (Conroy and Peterson, 2013). Causation mentions that if the harm could not have been occurred with the negligence of the negligence and it is because of the cause of harm and when the loss would not have been occurred then it is normal.
Elements requiring proof and legal requirements
The five elements will now be discussed in order to mention how it has impacted on the plaintiff and caused damages.
Duty of care:
This is the duty of care that was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and was not fulfilled. This duty arises when relationship between defendant and plaintiff is proved. In the present case Scott and Matt have a relationship and this can be proved by the court. Corrin (2001) commented that according to section 12C mentioned in the Employment law of 2005 if this relationship is proved element of duty of care is proved between the defendant and plaintiff. Matt had the responsibility of telling Scott about weight issues in the boat and only two passengers are allowed in the boat.