There are two types of οf duty οf care, duty οf care in negligence act (physical injury or damage) and duty οf care in negligence advice, according to the case, it can be seen that it is a negligence act οf physical injury to plaintiff, as a result as this report will be discussing about duty οf care in negligence act (physical injury or damage). To prove that the defendant owes a duty οf care is by doing the two test that Lord Atkin had established. And those tests are doctrine reasonable foreseeability and proximity. These two fundamental were devised and stated by Lord Atkin when dealing with the Donoghue v Stevenson case in 1932, and called these elements to put together, “the neighbor test”. Both these two elements are required in establishing a duty οf care was owed. Reasonable foreseeability is whether a reasonable person, in the position οf the defendant, has foreseen the like hood οf injury to the plaintiff arising out οf the defendant’s behavior? (Moore, 2005, p.22). From this case that we had seen Mr. Chuck is ordered by his boss to work on a metal frame at manufacture, there is a big chance that the frame which weighing halftone supported by a heavy chain will snap one day and injure the employees who work near the frame, on the other hand, the chain breakage is due to the failure οf the employer to properly maintain the chain. In addition, it does not require the exact nature οf the loss or injury been foreseen, just the possibility of injury οf the same common nature as that suffered.