"Contract and Negligence Law9Task 4 In given scenario, there are aspects of the tort of negligence which should be taken intoconsideration. These are duty, cause in fact, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. It wasthe duty of Collin to behave in a certain manner for his own security. Breach of duty isperformed by him when he practices negligence. On the other hand, there is a presence of dutyfor Sebastian to gather all information about weather. All of the aspects of the tort of negligenceare applicable here. Vicarious Liability The workers do not always work as per the expectations and need of the employer. Theemployer is supposed to dismiss the worker in this situation. The grounds which are suitable fordismissing the workers are:- Lack of capability- Redundancy- Misconduct- Legal situations and conditions- Other substantial causes The employer can be liable vicariously for the negligence of workers but he will not beliable if wrongful acts are committed intentionally and if these acts could have been avoided andif these acts are results of mere negligence (Schwartz and Rowe, 2010). Contract and Negligence Law10ReferencesAnson, W.R., Beatson, J., Burrows, A.S. and Cartwright, J., (2010). Anson's law of contract.Oxford University PressAyres, I. and Ayres, I., (2012). Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press.BPP Learning (2013).Business Law. BPP Learning Ltd, pp.55-271Fried, C., (2015). Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. OUP.Kumra, S. and Manfredi, S. (2012).Managing Equality and Diversity. New YorkMacMillan, C. and Stone, R. (2012).Elements of a Contract.London University PressMurray, R. (2011).Contract Law the Fundamentals. Sweet and Maxwell, pp.1-260th Peel, E. and Treitel, G. (2011).Treital on the Law of Contract 13 ed. Sweet and MaxwellSales of Goods Act (1979).Available from www.legislation.giv.uk/ukpga/1979/54 Schooner, S.L., (2011). Desiderata: Objectives for a system of government contract lawSchwartz, V.E. and Rowe, E.F., (2010). Comparative negligence. LexisNexis.CasesBrogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 666Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562Byrne 7 Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven and Co (1879) L. R. 5 C. P.D 344 CPDKent v Griffiths [2000] All ER 474Poussard v Spiers (1876) 1 QBD 410Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 "