What Legal Issues Does This Situation Raise And What Are The Possible Legal Consequences?
Foundations of Business Law
Assignment 1
Levi Manuel 100102979
Question 1
What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences?
First legal issue- Was there a duty of care?
In this case there a number of legal issues and the first and foremost of these issues is was there a duty of care? Duty of care, as a general rule, is that the defendant who owes a duty of care to all persons who it is reasonably foreseeable will suffer loss or damage as a result of the defendant’s actions. The principle law that can define duty of care and what it may entail is Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 5621.
In this situation there was a duty of care for the defendant, who is the bank, to provide to the plaintiff, who is the old man, as the defendant was in a position to see that water had come into the building and the floor was wet. …show more content…
Contributory negligence means that the plaintiff has not been very careful in looking to their own actions so that, in part, their failure to assess the risk has given rise to the damage that has been suffered. The case that is used to define contributory negligence is Connors v Western Australian Government Railways Commission [1992] Aust Torts Rep 81-187.
In this case between the defendant and the plaintiff it could be shown that there was some contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff that gave rise to the risk of damage. As the plaintiff was running from the building this would have helped to give more risk and possibility of damages to his persons. As other customers and employees had entered through the same doorway without injury it could be reasonably assumed that his running helped contribute to his fall and subsequent
Assignment 1
Levi Manuel 100102979
Question 1
What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences?
First legal issue- Was there a duty of care?
In this case there a number of legal issues and the first and foremost of these issues is was there a duty of care? Duty of care, as a general rule, is that the defendant who owes a duty of care to all persons who it is reasonably foreseeable will suffer loss or damage as a result of the defendant’s actions. The principle law that can define duty of care and what it may entail is Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 5621.
In this situation there was a duty of care for the defendant, who is the bank, to provide to the plaintiff, who is the old man, as the defendant was in a position to see that water had come into the building and the floor was wet. …show more content…
Contributory negligence means that the plaintiff has not been very careful in looking to their own actions so that, in part, their failure to assess the risk has given rise to the damage that has been suffered. The case that is used to define contributory negligence is Connors v Western Australian Government Railways Commission [1992] Aust Torts Rep 81-187.
In this case between the defendant and the plaintiff it could be shown that there was some contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff that gave rise to the risk of damage. As the plaintiff was running from the building this would have helped to give more risk and possibility of damages to his persons. As other customers and employees had entered through the same doorway without injury it could be reasonably assumed that his running helped contribute to his fall and subsequent