Preview

Tort Law

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1527 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Tort Law
If the defendant has duty of care to the plaintiff and breaches his duty of care, as long as it can be proved that the defendant’s careless conduct causes damage, injury or loss to the plaintiff while the damages are foreseeable, the defendant will be liable to negligence. The following shows why ABC ltd is negligent and therefore liable to Johnny and Kenneth.
Negligence is behavior that falls below the standard of reasonable, prudent and competent people. The careless behavior alone of the waiter would not incur liability to ABC ltd. Only when it leads to the damage by negligence, which is actionable, would incur liability. In Donoghue v Stevenson, friends of Mrs. Donoghue bought her a bottle of ginger beer, which contained a composed snail and caused Mrs. Donoghue to be ill. Since Mrs. Donoghue did not buy the beer, she could not sue under contract law but in tort. The Court held that manufacturer owed duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue and that duty was breached. The rationales behind were that Mrs. Donoghue should have had in their mind as being influenced by their careless behavior. People owe duty of care to their neighbor, who is anyone whom they can reasonably foresee as being affected by their acts or omissions. The damages were easily foreseeable by the company when the waiter carried the hot water in a careless manner and of course it would definitely affect the customers or everyone in the restaurant. Therefore, ABC ltd owes duty to Johnny and Kenneth.
As the duty of care exists, the question is whether the restaurant has breached the duty of care and therefore liable to Johnny and Kenneth. Lord Reid held in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co that negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or doing something that which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. In Glasgow Corporation v Muir, the court also held that the reasonable

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Scenario: As pedestrians exited at the close of an arts and crafts show, Jason Davis, an employee of the show’s producer, stood near the exit. Suddenly and without warning, Davis turned around and collided with Yvonne Esposito, an 80-year-old woman. Esposito was knocked to the ground, fracturing her hip. After hip replacement surgery, she was left with a permanent physical impairment. Esposito filed suit in a federal district court against Davis and others, alleging negligence.…

    • 492 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Health Care Policy

    • 312 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The four elements necessary to prove a negligence case are duty of care, breach of that duty, injury, and causation. The first requirement in establishing negligence is for a plaintiff to prove the existence of a legal relationship between himself or herself and the defendant. Duty is defined as a legal obligation of care, performance, or observation imposed on one to safeguard the rights of others. This duty, for example, can arise from a relationship between a physician and a patient which may be as simple as a telephone conversation. Duty can also be established by contract or statute between a plaintiff and a defendant.…

    • 312 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Medical Law and Ethics

    • 900 Words
    • 4 Pages

    7. List and describe the four Ds of negligence. Duty – the person charged with negligence owed a duty of care to the accuser. Dereliction – The health care provider breached the duty of care to the patient. Direct Cause – The breach of the duty of care to the patient was a direct cause of the patient’s injury. Damages – There is a legally recognizable injury to the patient.…

    • 900 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Legt 1710 Assignment 1

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages

    * Jones L Introduction to Business Law 1st, 2011, C11 the Tort Law of Negligence. P342…

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Torts Breakdown of Elements

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages

    2. Negligence is the failure of an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person to exercise due care, resulting in harm or injury to the plaintiff. Negligence torts do not require intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the level necessary to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm. To determine if someone should be found liable for a negligence tort, a reasonable person standard is used. If the defendant 's behavior is found to be less careful than behavior a reasonable person would exhibit, that defendant can be found liable for damages.…

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    tort law

    • 320 Words
    • 2 Pages

    3) How were the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress applied to that case? In other words, explain why the court concluded that there was enough evidence to establish intentional…

    • 320 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Tort Law

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages

    1. Smiley, a buyer for Carrefour Fashions, entered the store of a rival firm, Boulevard Boutique, in order to find out what latest lines they were carrying. He was recognized by Maldini, the manager of Boulevard Boutique, who called the store detective, Rocco, and ordered him to “keep an eye” on Smiley while he, Maldini, called the police.…

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pa201 Unit 3 Assignment

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Rule: The grocery store can only be held liable if it had knowledge of the hazardous condition.…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ls 311 Unit 2 Assignment

    • 387 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Negligence is defined as an unintentional tort and occurs when someone is injured because of the failure of someone else. Duty of care is the obligation by an individual to keep foreseeable harm from others. Certain actions can be tolerated and some cannot; which simply means that some actions are right and some actions are wrong. (Fundamentals of Business Law, pg. 80) In this case John Davis was at the exit while patrons left the art show. Unexpectedly Mr. Davis spun around colliding with Ms. Esposito. Ms Esposito, an 80 year old woman, fell to the ground because of the collision with John Davis. The fall to the ground fractured Ms Esposito’s hip and resulted in replacement hip surgery for her. The law recognizes the duty on the part of the employer to keep the flow of the pedestrians unobstructed. The burden imposed upon John Davis to keep a proper lookout in the access area to a building is easy to show. Whereas, showing the likelihood of serious injury when a patron is knocked to the ground is much harder to prove. The burden of such a precaution is reasonable in order to protect customers or pedestrians in their use of the access areas to a building." AN employee is an extension of the employer and is under the same obligations.…

    • 387 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Duty of Care

    • 33459 Words
    • 134 Pages

    Duty of Care General: Duty is the primary control device which allows the courts to keep liability for negligence within what they regard as acceptable limits and the controversies which have centered around the criteria for the exercise of a duty reflect differences of opinion as to the proper ambit of liability for negligence. Before Donoghue v Stevenson, there was no liability for negligence in a case where there is no special relationship between parties. Because in Case of Assault or Battery or Defamation where someone has some certain restrictions that the D must not do by the law. But in a case of Pure negligence it was uncertain, so the court used to impose duties only where D & C had some kind of relations such as relation with a Doctor to his patient or a Lawyer to his client and so on. In this sense the Setevenson case was unique because in that case X bought Beer for his friend from a Shop and while drinking that his friend Y found that there was a snail and Y became seriously ill. The question to the court was as there was no relation existed between the Manufacturer and Y how they could impose a duty in such a situation. Furthermore because of the principle of Privity Y could not sue the Shop hence she had no contractual relations with the shop. However the House of Lords by majority discovered that there was a duty. And how it worked we come know form the dicta of Lord Atkin. His Lordship stated that, manufacturers has a duty because Y was neighbor by law of the manufacturer, and everyone has duty by law toward their neighbors not to harm them. Court said one must not injured…

    • 33459 Words
    • 134 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Business Law, Tort Law

    • 2260 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Firstly, Danny owed Tim the duty of care. Meaning of duty of care is the obligation people owe each other not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk to them (Cheeseman, 2010). Danny has the obligation to make sure that his car did not cause any harm or injury towards others or the environment, which is definitely not the case as he had forgotten to put on his handbrake. A perfect case example is of the Liebeck v. McDonald 's Restaurants(1994), where the plaintiff were awarded $200000 compensatory damages(reduced by $40000 for her own negligence) because of McDonald 's negligence. Liebeck was injured in her thighs,legs,groin and buttocks, as she opened the lid of the coffee cup she bought from McDonald 's, which she put it on her lap. The contents in the cup…

    • 2260 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Trina's Negligence

    • 2502 Words
    • 11 Pages

    The owner set up the requirement that her employees would check the aisles every hour. Trina did attempt to exercise reasonable care. Subsequently, the length of time is considered when looking at the dangerous condition. This is to say, the length of time the condition had been there. Here, the spill happened between 10 am and 11:30am, when the cashier had checked the aisle at 10 to the time of the accident at 11:30. This indicates that the spill had not been there very long, if it was there at all. The cashier stated that the aisle had no leaks, water displays, or water guns anywhere near it, so Trina took ordinary care with her hour inspection instruction. Additionally, the water could not have been there long under the circumstances because there was no water around the area that would make the owner or cashier aware of the fact that water could be on the aisle. Instead, it would be very unlikely water would be on the floor on that aisle, so the length of time here was more reasonable. Had there been water displays, the cashier and owner should have checked the aisles more frequently. In Owens v. Coffee Corner the court found that the owner was liable for coffee that had “just spilled” because it was reasonable foreseeable that coffee-shop customers would spill coffee. However in a camera store where someone “just spilled” soda they were not liable because no refreshments were available and it was unlikely someone would spill. Similarly here, Trina owns a toy store that does not sell refreshments, and spills like this have never happened before. Thus, she is likely not negligent for the spill because the time frame here was not long under the…

    • 2502 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Personal Injury

    • 517 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Carelessness occurs while one pays less attention to the standards of care that a sensible and wise person would have kept in mind all through the same conditions. Because of the reason given, the objective of person being sued is of no importance since only the illegal action is important. Proving carelessness requires making clear that the defendant obliged to pay a duty to the petitioner, the duty was violated, the offence was the actual and contiguous reason of the injury, and the petitioner is subject to get compensation to…

    • 517 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Negligence

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Donoghue sued Stevenson, the manufacturer of the drink, for negligence. ”(Donoghue v Stevenson, [1932] AC 562) This case set the precedent for future negligent cases and can be applied to this case, in which David had a duty of care towards Daniel as he was driving the car and should have reasonably foreseen the accident and taken appropriate care towards you as the driver. In the Donoghue case Stevenson had a duty of care towards its customers in which the drink would be safe. David breached this duty of care by recklessly driving and failed to reach the standard duty of care.…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays