Priscilla V Vogue Beauty Salon
[The Negligent act refers to negligent category A for the case Priscilla Vs Vogue beauty Salon, the document excludes the descriptions for Defense.]
The legal issue in this case relates to the law of negligence. Specifically, whether Defendant, Vogue Beauty Salon was negligent by applying fragranced cream to the skin of Plaintiff, Priscilla. [Note: The Employee of Vogue Beauty Salon, Veronica was vicariously liable for the damages of her actions.] Relevant Law and Application
1 Did the Defendant owe the Plaintiff a duty of care?
As per Donogue V Stevenson, the law states that the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care if the negligent act causes physical or psychological injury to person or damage to property. It therefore must fulfill these two tests. 1.1 Was the risk reasonably foreseeable?
The risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, since Plaintiff specifically asked the employee of the Defendant not to apply fragranced cream to Plaintiff’s skin, due to a skin condition that is suffered by Plaintiff that occurs in the case of one in sixty women. In a reasonable point of view, if a third party was asked not to apply fragranced cream to the skin of someone who suffers from a skin condition, the third party would follow as requested and applied a non- fragranced cream to the skin of the person with a skin condition. 1.2 Was there a relationship of proximity between Defendant and Plaintiff?
In this case, the Defendant being the party providing the service and the Plaintiff being the party customer receiving the service shows the close relationship of proximity between defendant and plaintiff. 1.3 Sub conclusion
Therefore, the defendant Vogue Beauty Salon owed the plaintiff Priscilla a duty of care.
2 Did the Defendant breach the standard of care?
As per Romeo V Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, the law...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document