Negligence-Tony vs. Sally
Negligence-Tony vs. Sally.
There is definitely an issue as to whether an accident caused by a severe weather change can be blamed on an owner of a business for a simple alteration previously done on their premises. In this case does tony really have a case for negligence and recover money for damages and lost wages against Sally?
Negligence is the failure to exercise degree of reasonable care for a given circumstance, hence resulting in unintended injury to another party. Its elements are;
- Duty of care- legal obligation imposed upon a person required to adhere to a reasonable care standard while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others.
- Breach of duty-this is when someone who has a duty of care toward another knowingly exposes them to substantial risk of loss or harm.
- Causation-liability test examining whether a particular said act or its omission is the cause of loss or damage sustained by victim resulting in breach of duty owed to the injured party.
- Proximate cause-liability in reasonable care owed to others within a foreseeable zone of danger.
- Harm-direct consequence of bodily injury, financial loss, personal reputation sustained from the breach of duty of care, thereby enable victim to recover appropriate damages.
In determining Sally’s negligence against Tony, overall reasonableness of her actions versus the foreseeability of danger will have to be ascertained.
Duty of care- sally owns a store. Tony is a customer. Sally definitely has a duty to keep her customers safe around her hence proving duty of care to tony.
Breach of duty- sally replaced the steps to take care of her disabled clients by being able to access her shop with a wheelchair. Therefore sally did not in any way put tony in harm’s way and hence sally’s breach of duty is not sustained.
Causation-sally neither made physical contact with tony nor was close to tony because the fact pattern says tony fell because the ramp was very wet. Therefore sally’s causation is not sustained.
Proximate cause- tony alleged the ramp instead of steps which sally switched out resulted in his slippage. However, the fact pattern sates that “the ramp was very wet and tony slipped” which can be taken to mean that had there been steps it would be just as wet. There is no mention of the ramp replacement being the cause of the slippage. Hence sally’s proximate cause is not sustained.
Harm- tony did suffer bodily injury, medical expenses and financial loss due to his accident. However, based on breach of duty and proximate cause elements as examined above, Sally’s actions did not in any way have a direct connection to Tony’s bodily injury and financial loss.
To sum it up, breach of duty, causation, proximate cause and harm elements are not sustained by analysis, hence sally is not negligent to her duties to tony as a customer.
Tony will not be successful in his negligence lawsuit against sally to recover medical expenses or the lost endorsement contract cost.
|The course objectives being assessed by this assignment are objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Graduate qualities associated with these learning objectives are identified in the course outline.
|Key components of this assignment
Not all areas are weighted evenly.
|Performance on this component|
|Excellent||Very Good||Good||Fair||Poor||Very Poor|
|1. Relevant legal issues identified|
|2. Rules / case law / Legislation
Relevant law correctly identified and accurately stated
Clear application of the facts to the rules/law
Clear and logical arguments presented
Answer clearly and logically structured
Correct English expression, grammar, spelling and punctuation
Correct in-text referencing
Complete and accurate reference list