Tort Law and Duty of Care

This assignment discusses the importance of tort law in human life, focusing on the duty of care law. It explains how tort law has established a system to take care of people who have been injured, with the aim of providing compensation and care rather than punishing victims. The document also touches on standard of care, vicarious liability, and non-delegate duties, highlighting their significance in managing and taking care of people.

Law of tort

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................1
Duty of Care.....................................................................................................................................1
Rights and duties of parties in tort..............................................................................................1
Standard of Care and breach of duty ...............................................................................................1
Negligence.......................................................................................................................................2
Causation and Scope of Liability.....................................................................................................3
Factual Causation........................................................................................................................3
Remoteness.................................................................................................................................4
Scope of Liability........................................................................................................................4
Definitions of multiple contributing causes and multiple cumulative causes ............................4
Breach of Duty.................................................................................................................................4
Defences to negligence claims.........................................................................................................5
Obvious Risk...............................................................................................................................5
Inherent Risk...............................................................................................................................5
Voluntary assumption of risk......................................................................................................5
Contributory Negligence.............................................................................................................6
Advise Raw Vegan Delights.......................................................................................................6
Advise Terri................................................................................................................................6
Vicarious liability and non – delegate duties...................................................................................6
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
The Law of torts are provides compensation to the peoples who have been injured or
whose property has been damaged by the others. That main purpose of this law is not punished to
bad person but it to provide damages to victims as compensation for their losses. It is affect to
near of walk life from manufacture and property owners, drives doctors and all the peoples who
are had duty of care to peoples (Chan, G.K.Y., 201). RVD is the fast food restaurant is NSW.
Terri walks into the restaurant and slipped and fell, and she is 75 years old. This essay is based
on the nature and scope of the principles and concept of negligence law. It has show the
interaction between common law of negligence. The tort of negligence is involves harm caused
by failing to act as a form of careless possibly with extenuating.
MAIN BODY
Duty of Care
Duty of care is about individual well-being, welfare, compliance and good practices. It is
automatically assumed that a duty of care is owed by Raw Vegan Delights to Terri under
occupiers’ liability principles. Terri owed herself a duty of care to take reasonable care not to
injure herself. This element is the legal duty to take responsible care not to cause harm to another
person. There are two types of approaches are help to find the duty of care such as salient feature
and incrementalism. The salient feature approach is looks the particular and specific feature of
case. That are help to determine duty of care.
Other hand, in incremental approach is defined the changes in the novel categories of
negligence at each case. In these case has the three categories of duty such as driver/passenger,
doctor/patient and solicitor/client. Agrees with this statement because of after searching and
investigate the case place after that they are concluded and take right decision for the case. After
this process judge give duty of care this person who are responsible for that (Cohen, M., 2017).
Rights and duties of parties in tort
The person is liable and responsible when they are injured to another person. This may be
defined and distinguish according to the degree of fault and mistakes.
Standard of Care and breach of duty
The standard of care is related to the level of care and RVD is responsible for that. The
standard of care of RVD is that of a reasonable business owner, or of an owner/occupier of a

premise. The standard of care of Terri is that of a reasonable person with osteoporosis. Standard
of care is depends upon the situation which is Lowered or heightened. Lowered care is related to
the children care other hand heightened is for professional person. At this case the Lowered care
standard is not applicable. According to this case the heightened care is best and suitable as per
the case. It is not reasonable for the women because the care person is the men and terri is
women, but they can take care of her and also hire the person who are take care of women like
hire female nurse. There are four factors which can create negligence such as the probability of
harm, likely seriousness of harm, burden of taking precautions and social utility of the activity.
Negligence
Per the Civil Liability Act (2002), a person is not negligent in failing to take precautions
against a risk of harm unless (a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person
knew or ought to have known), and (b) the risk was not insignificant, and (c) in the
circumstances, a reasonable person in the person's position would have taken those precautions.
In this particular case, the risk of a patron slipping on a dropped piece of food is high in a
food establishment. The owners of RVD, Jess and Pete were in the process of finalising a safety
and work fLaw manual which set out processes such as the frequency of cleaning inspections.
The creation of such processes acknowledge that the owners were aware of the risk and that the
risk was foreseeable. Per Section 52(1)(c), the subsequent taking of action that would have
avoided a risk of harm does not of itself give rise to or affect liability in respect of the risk and
does not of itself constitute an admission of liability in connection with the risk (Collins and
McLeod-Kilmurray, 2017).
The risk of a patron slipping and hurting themselves by falling is not insignificant. Woolworth
Per the Civil Liability Act (2002) the court is to consider the fallowing to determining
whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, among other
relevant things: (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken; (b) the
likely seriousness of the harm; (c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm; and
(d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.
The probability that the farm would occur if care were not taken is high as the risk of
slipping on a piece of discarded food is higher if the floor is not inspected or cleaned regularly.
However, it is possible that even if the cleaning schedule was folLawed closely, another patron

could drop food within that two (2) hour time frame which could ultimately result in someone
falls and injuring themselves regardless of the cleaning schedule.
The likely seriousness of the harm is that someone may fall and injure themselves,
resulting in a mild to moderate injury of a broken bone or concussion in a worst-case scenario. In
this specific case, the plaintiff was recently diagnosed with osteoporosis which effectively
caused her injury to be more severe and permanent. It was unlikely that her injury would have
been as severe if she did not have osteoporosis.
The burden of taking precautions in this case is not unreasonable. The store was expected to
inspect and clean the floors regularly, in which they did not do throughout the day whatsoever
(Collins, 2016).
There was no social utility or benefit to society of the activity that caused the risk of
harm. The store was exceptionally engaged on the day of the incident; however, the failure to
clean the floors of the establishment did not benefit the society in any way that would have
outweighed the risk of the injury sustained by the plaintiff.
A reasonable person would have taken the precautions to inspect and clean the floors of a
food establishment every two hours, as already recommended by the owners.
In light of the above, it should be determiners end that RVD was negligent by failing to inspect
and clean the floors regularly.
Causation and Scope of Liability
5D In order to determine that the negligence caused the harm, the negligence must be a
necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm; and that it is appropriate for the scope of the
negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused. There are three types which are
established for causation are empirical association, temporal priority and non spuriousness. The
primary test for this is “but for” test and second is necessary conditions test (Wright, 2017).
Factual Causation
The failure to regularly inspect and clean the floors was a necessary condition of the
occurrence of the harm. In this case necessary test is applied which must be present for the event
to occur. That is not provided the sufficient cause for the occurrences of the event. Should the
floors have been inspected and cleaned regularly, the risk of the patron falling and injuring
herself would have been less severe. The defendant failed to inspect and clean the floors at any

point in the day. It is likely that if the defendant fallowed a regular cleaning schedule, less food
pieces would have been on the floor resulting in a Lower chance of injury.
Remoteness
It was reasonably foreseeable that a patron may bring a chip from a neighbouring store
into the establishment. Therefore, should the cause of the injury be from a chip from a
neighbouring store, it is not too remote that the damage may occur (Linden, 2016).
Scope of Liability
The plaintiff was recently diagnosed with osteoporosis. It is unlikely that her injuries
would have been so severe if she did not have osteoporosis. The defendant will be liable for the
resultant damages regardless of whether they are reasonably foreseeable under the eggshell skull
rule. Stephenson v Waite Ltd rules that "Although the broad basis of the rule is that it would be
unjust to hold a wrongdoer liable for damage of a kind which he could not reasonably foresee,
nevertheless the rule accepts the position that there are many matters of detail which nobody
could predict but for which the wrongdoer nevertheless remains liable. The scope of liability is
required for the common to negligence and to many forms of strict liability. This concern the
normative issues for the appropriate scope of negligence is factual cause of harm. That are covers
the issues, like the other than factual cause of harm.
Definitions of multiple contributing causes and multiple cumulative causes
Multiple contributing cause: that is help to get cause result as per the report of police and also
other inspectors. This gives the positive attitude on the contributing the factor for analysis
effectiveness for report.
Multiple cumulative cause: this refers the environmental effects and cumulative impact on that
can be defined as the changes in the environment causes by the combined the impact of past,
present and future human and peoples activities and natural processes.
Breach of Duty
Duty of care is not arisen in all circumstances. It only rises on the reasonable reason. Like
when person is breached their duty of care a person is injured because of the action of other
person. As, per that raw Vegan Delights breached their duty of care towards the terri. Terri is
slipped at floor in the engaged fast food restaurant. In case of breach the duty of care is not good

and better for slipping on the floor that has spilled a customer. The floor of a food court in a
shopping centre and restaurant are applicable at that (McInnes and Simpson, 2018).
Defences to negligence claims
The liability a defence is responsible for mitigated using a few common defences such as
contribute negligence, comparative negligence and assumption of risk. The defendant then bears
and providing action for any defences. The fallowing defences apply for damage and injuries are
as folLaws:
Obvious Risk
It can be argued that there was an obvious risk that there may be food products on the
floor of an engaged food establishment during a engaged day. Per 5F of Civil Liability Act, a
risk can be an obvious risk even through it has a Law probability of occurring. A person who
suffers harm is presumed to have been aware of the risk of harm if it was an obvious risk, unless
the person proves that they were not aware of the risk.
The defendant does not owe a duty of care to another person to warn of an obvious risk to
the plaintiff.
The defendant may argue that there was an obvious risk that the plaintiff may fall and
injure herself; however, they will likely be unsuccessful (Wass and Hook, 2017).
Inherent Risk
An inherent risk is something that cannot be avoided by the exercise of reasonable care
and skill. Inherent risk may be used as a defence if the establishment had regularly inspected and
cleaned the floor in accordance with their cleaning schedule. In this case, inherent risk cannot be
used as a defence. A defence is not liable in the case of negligence for the harm and peoples are
suffered by the plaintiff as a result in inherent risk.
Voluntary assumption of risk
This risk can be avoid liability by establishing voluntary assumption of risk by the
plaintiff. This must show a fully aware of the risk is involved in the activity. It had the full
appreciation and comprehension of nature are extended the risk and voluntary accepted by the
whole risk in the work (Oliphant and Nolan, 2017).

Contributory Negligence
The plaintiff may have been contributory negligent by failing to take the necessary care
to avoid the harm. The standard of care of the plaintiff is that of a regular person with
osteoporosis or another illness that may affect the extent of injury. The plaintiff knew or ought to
have known that there was an obvious risk that there would be discarded food on the floor of a
food establishment and should have taken due care to ensure that they did not slip on the food.
Contributory negligence can defeat a claim and reduce the damages by up to 100%. There are
common of the contributory negligence includes failing to wear a seat belt, intoxication and an
employee are failing to wear proper safety equipment provided by employer.
Advise Raw Vegan Delights
Raw Vegan Delights was negligent by failing to folLaw a regular cleaning schedule to
ensure the safety of their patrons. RVD is advised to argue that there was an obvious risk that a
patron may slip on food in an engaged food establishment and that the patrons needn’t be
advised of this risk. Further, it is advised that RVD argue that Terri was contributory negligent
by failing to take the care to avoid the obvious risk of injuring herself. Terri should have taken a
heightened amount of care to avoid injury due to the knowledge of her prior diagnosis (Pitel,
2018).
Advise Terri
Terri is advised argue that RVD was negligent and breached their duty of care under
occupiers’ liability principles. RVD failed to maintain a regular cleaning schedule and it was
reasonably foreseeable that the injury to Terri would occur.
Vicarious liability and non – delegate duties
Vicarious liability is help to determine the employers are legally liable for any breaches
by an employee committed in the course of their employment and the peoples. That is effective
and valuable for manage and take care of peoples. Non delegate duties for the sightly different
to vicarious liability. That non duty is owned then employer or principle is personally. Non
delegate duties means that the task are delegated but the responsibilities are remained at their.
That is imposed directly upon the employer of an independent to protect person.

CONCLUSION
From the above essay it had been concluded that the law has important part of human life
because that had provided safe and quality of peoples life. The included by the duty of care law
that had been effective and valuable for peoples care as per the mistakes. Standard of care helped
for select care for people as per the injuries. That had effective and valuable for managing. As
per the above discussion tort law had established for take care of people by which they have
injured to them. That had aimed to said not punished to victim but take compensation and care.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Chan, G.K.Y., 2016. Finding common law duty of care from statutory duties: All within the
Anns framework. Tort Law Review. 24(1). p.14.
Cohen, M., 2017. International human rights norms and maternal tort immunity in Canada:
connecting the dots. The International Journal of Human Rights. 21(6). pp.655-671.
Collins, L. and McLeod-Kilmurray, H., 2017. Common law tools to protect the environment1.
In Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law (pp. 85-100). Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
Collins, L. M., 2016. Material Contribution to Risk in the Canadian Law of Toxic Torts. Chi.-
Kent L. Rev.. 91. p.567.
Linden, A.M., 2016. Special Issue Coordinator This special torts issue of the Alberta Law
Review is in honour of Professor Lewis Klar. It is a recognition and a celebration of the
far-reaching and lasting contribution which he has made to tort law scholarship over the
last 40 years. Without question, Lewis Klar is one of the leading tort scholars not only
in Canada but also internationally, and this is reflected in. ALBERTA LAW RevIEW. 53.
p.4.
McInnes, M. and Simpson, A., 2018. The Shopkeeper's Privilege and Canadian Tort Law. Alta.
L. Rev.. 56. p.29.
Oliphant, K. and Nolan, D., 2017. Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press.
Pitel, S.G., 2018. Six of One, Half a Dozen of the Other: Jurisdiction in Common Law Canada.
Osgoode Hall LJ. 55. p.63.
Wass, J. and Hook, M., 2017. Reform of Choice of Law Rules for Tort. Wass, J and Hook, M
“Reform of choice of law rules for tort”[2017] NZLJ. pp.24-26.
Wright, J., 2017. Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.