这是我们在2018年为英国谢菲尔德大学的学弟学妹们创作的一篇基础法律的范文，首先交代case题目，布鲁克是否在对谷市议会的疏忽中拥有合法权利？
Case 1
Issue:
Whether Brooke has legal rights in negligence against the Valley City Council?
再来列举相关rules，也就是解释行使适当和合理义务的失败将导致侵权责任法中的责任。 在侵权法中形成责任有几个必要的要素：谨慎义务，违背义务，事实因果关系，偏远，共同过失，损害赔偿。
Rule:
The failure of exercising appropriate and reasonable duty will lead to liabilities in tort law of negligence. There are several necessary elements to be established to form the liabilities in tort law: duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, remoteness, contributory negligence, damages.
1. The reasonable foreseeability test applied in Australia to test the duty of care (Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2010] HCA 22).
2. The breach of duty element requires the defendant to act below the standard of care (Vairy v Wyong Shire Council(2005) 223 CLR 422).
3. The factual causation element requires the defendant’s behavior actually causes the plaintiff’s injury. The “But for” test and common sense test applied (Haber v Walker [1963] VR 339).
4. The damages will not be recovered if the negligent act is too remote to the damages (Wagon Mound No 1 [1961] AC 388).
5. If the plaintiff has negligence to his own injuries, then the liability to the defendant might be reduced (Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286).
6. The plaintiff must prove the loss in order to apply for compensation (Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402, 412).
再来进行分析，首先，VCC有责任为游泳湖负责休闲目的。 VCC可以合理地预见到，由于缺乏并不总是很深的，VCC会意识到有人可能在湖中受伤和受伤。 其次，VCC的行为低于标准护理，而在这种情况下，一个合理的人可能会做出更多的迹象来识别深部和浅部。 第三，VCC的行为与伤害之间有联系。 但由于VCC对标志的疏忽，原告不会受到伤害。 第四，疏忽并不太伤人。 第五，原告在决定在湖中滑雪时有自己的疏忽，因为他没有经验，也没有试图了解这个湖。 因此，VCC的责任可以减少。 最后，原告的脊椎受伤，导致药品和其他损失。
Application:
First, VCC has the duty as it was responsible for the lake with the purpose of recreation. It is reasonably foreseeable for VCC to realize someone might be skilling and injury in the lake due to the lack was not always deep. Second, VCC acted below the standard care, while a reasonable person in this circumstance is likely to make more signs to identify the deep area and the shallow area. Third, there was a link between VCC’s action and the injury. But for the VCC’s negligence of the sign, the plaintiff would not get injury. Forth, the negligence is not too remote to the injury. Fifth, the plaintiff has own negligence in deciding to ski in the lake as he was inexperienced and not try to know about the lake. Hence, the liability of VCC can be reduced. Finally, the plaintiff suffered injuries to the spine, which leaded to medicine and other loss.
最后给出结论，布鲁克对谷市议会有疏忽的合法权利。
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Brooke has legal rights in negligence against the Valley City Council.