Negligence and Duty of Care in Two Cases

1
Title Page
Name of the student
Student ID

2
Contents
Case #1.............................................................................................................................................3
Solution 1.....................................................................................................................................3
Solution 2.....................................................................................................................................3
Solution 3.....................................................................................................................................3
Solution 4.....................................................................................................................................4
Solution 5.....................................................................................................................................4
Case #2.............................................................................................................................................4
Solution 1.....................................................................................................................................4
Solution 2.....................................................................................................................................5
Solution 3.....................................................................................................................................5
Solution 4.....................................................................................................................................5
Solution 5.....................................................................................................................................5
Reference List..................................................................................................................................6

3
Case #1
Solution 1
In negligence, Lord Atkin stated that each maker/defendant is duty bound to assure that no
wound is suffered to the plaintiff, provided; (Plunkett, 2018)
i. The plaintiff shares the connection of proximity with the defendant. Proximity
implies that defendant acts will impact plaintiff directly (Michael v Chief
Constable of South Wales Police [2015];
ii. That the defendant is only duty bound towards those plaintiffs who can be reasonably
foreseeable (Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990].
TT is a chain of restaurant. A bowl soup is ordered by Ab and he chose to eat it in the restaurant.
He was told that the floor is washed and he must be careful. Ab asserted.
Now, AB can argue that TT owes him a duty of care as:
i. Neighborhood – TT is the restaurant and is duty bound to make sure that by no
acts/omission the customers face any kind of harm. The customers are the neighbor of
the restaurant as they are in proximate relationship. Any act/omission in the restaurant
will impact the customers directly.
ii. Reasonable foreseeability – The restaurant and the staff can reasonably anticipate the
presence of Ab in the restaurant as Ab decided to have the meal in the premises only..
Solution 2
In negligence, there should be breach of duty of care by defendant. The duty is violated when the
standard of concern that is probable from the defendant is not by him. The standard of care
implies the level and degree of care that is projected from the defendant. The degree is high
when the risk is high or when the gravity of harm is high or when the plaintiffs are children or
old people, etc and vice versa (C l e m e n t s v . C l e m e n t s ( 2 0 1 2 ) . (Edwards, 2019)
TT has breached the level of concern that is projected from it. Ab can argue that though the
server told him that the floor is wet, still there was no sign of warning, cautioning the people that
the floor is wet. The restaurant is filled with customers and is aware that since the wet areas are
not visible then it might result in causing injury to one of the customers. Thus, the standard of
concern that is projected is not met.
Solution 3
Damages imply that loss or the injury that is endured by the claimant because of the breach on
the part of the defendant. However, the defendant is accountable for only those damages which
are: (Korte and Miscevic, 2016)
i. Causation – incurred by acts of the wrongdoer (Monks v. ING Insurance Co. (2008)
ii. Remoteness – The defendant will compensate those damages which are reasonably
foreseeable.
Ab suffers damage because of the violation of the duty on the part of the restaurant. The potential
damage suffered by Ab includes:
i. He broke his hand and thus could not compete in the finals for the “Battle of the
Bands” competition. He missed the opportunity to get signed by music executives.
ii. Suffers burns from the spillage of the soup.
Ab has decided to sue TT for negligence, and claims TT owes him the amount of $10 million in
general and special damages, for the exorbitant salary he would have made in the music industry.