Court Case: Darrell's Duty Of Care

From my point of view, Darrell’s case would have two possibilities that it would be heard depending on Darrell’s loss of future income. The reason why I believe this is while inferior provincial court hears civil cases which are above $50,000, Superior court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta hears civil cases which are below $50,000. Additionally, even though there is the fact that Darrell was unable to work for the next three months due to the severity of his injuries, there is not provided exact amount of damages such as a pecuniary. Therefore, this case still has both possibilities that it can be heard by inferior provincial court or Superior court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
However, if there were an appeal, it would be heard in the “Court of
According to Canadian Business and the Law, duty of care is an element of the tort of negligence and it is defined as the responsibility owed to avoid careless that causes harm to others. Also, it necessarily need to test in terms of two types factors such as foreseeability and proximity: legal neighbour because a plaintiff must state and clarify the two factors in order to successfully bring a claim in negligence for compensation for an injury.

As the result of the Negligence Analysis steps to establish Duty of Care shows positive, there is enough evidence to identify that PP owe Darrell a duty of care.

Based on the result of the Negligence Analysis to identify that the PP breached the standard of care, Pizza Palace is not reasonable Restaurant. This is because they did not pay more attention to manage their stuff and investment and inventory.

Defenses available to PP is only Contributory Negligence that is a partial defense.
This is because since Darrell did not sign any waiver, Voluntary Assumption of Risk is not applicable.
Additionally, when considering that Darrell replied by “No, thanks. I’m in hurry. I ‘ll just take it as it is.” Darrell was not pay attention to establish the