T & J's Negligence Was Caused By T.

One very important issue in this case and many civil lawsuits is negligence. Negligence is when there is a failure to use reasonable care which results in injury or damage to another. It also asks who is responsible for one’s injury. In this case, Mrs. McKoy claims her injuries were caused by T & J’s negligent behavior. In order to prove negligence, T & J must be guilty of five elements: duty of due care, breach, factual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Duty of due care means that the defendant has a duty to the plaintiff if he or she could have foreseen injury to a particular person. A person at work has an increased duty of care and must act as a reasonable person in his or her profession. In this case, T & J had a duty of due care as they were on the job and could prevent a foreseeable injury, an
A breach of duty is when a defendant failed to meet his or her legal obligations, if there is in fact a legal duty of care. Since there is a legal duty of care, the plaintiff did in fact have a breach of duty by not having clean and sterilized nail instruments. They also did not ask about previous diseases or illnesses or gave warning that injury is possible, which is also a part of their duty. Businesses must maintain safe store conditions and provide clean environments that protect their customers from harm. From the plaintiff’s testimony, T & J did not use clean nail instruments, although I could have missed later proof that showed they did in fact use clean nail tools. Factual cause is when the defendant’s conduct actually caused the injury. From what I witnessed, there was no proof of causation that the manicure was the reason for the infection, since nearly three weeks had passed in between the manicure and the hospitalization. There could have been later evidence creating causation, but from my day in court, it appeared that the defendant’s breach of duty did not cause the plaintiff’s harm. Proximate cause is when the type of harm is