Business law Assignment on Vicarious Liability

RUNNING HEAD: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 1
Business law Assignment
Submitted by:

Business law Assignment 2
Obligation in terms of Larry
Larry is creating nuisance i the restaurant on a regular basis by getting involved in an
argumentative conversation with the employees and the other customers. This has a substantial
impact on the clientele. In this situation the restaurant owner has a right to stop him from
harming the interest of the restaurant. The regular nuisance created by him can be considered as
a ground handling the situation. There are possible remedies available to the restaurant owner
where he can restrict Larry from entering the restaurant. In case of damage created through
nuisance, the individual has to pay off the amount caused in the premises. Another reedy
available is to stop the individual from entering the restaurant (Barker, et al 2012).
Obligation in term of staff
The employer is held liable for the act of the employee. This type of situation occurs
when an individual act n behalf of the employer. Vicarious liability pours the burden on the
employer for the deeds of the employee. In order to draw the obligation of the staff a relationship
test has to be conducted. The law creates an obligation under tort for the negligence done to
another person. Vicarious liability creates the burden on the employer while accomplishing his
duties (Lunney & Oliphant, 2008).
Obligation in relation to the other clients
In case of public nuisance the restaurant owner and the staff can take action against the
person creating nuisance. Any such harm can create a monetary loss to the company. This
creates a need to develop precautionary measures in order to deal with the problem. There is

Business law Assignment 3
mandatory obligation towards tee clients. A damage caused to the restaurant owner will create
an obligation over him. The restaurant has an obligation to be met in order to deal with the
nuisance created in the current pretext. This will however allow in dealing with any further tort
(Giliker, 2010).
Who is held liable for the injuries of Larry?
In case of breach of day of care, tort of negligence arises. There are three elements that
need to be considered while taking reasonable care at the time of negligence. The defendant
when fail to assure required standards and the damages that are paid to the plaintiff are remote.
The given situation there is negligence from the part of employee. There should be some
reasonable care must be taken in order to avoid such an incidences (Deakin, Johnston &
Markesinis, 2012).
The Civil Liability Act 2002 states that in case of personal risk it is important to run a
reasonable test which includes 3 steps. While considering the injury, the court will decide upon
the preventive measures to be taken in order to avoid the consequences of the event. The court
will consider the risk associated with the act while deciding upon the breach. In this case it was
already clear that the door can cause potential harm to the individual. The foreseability of the
risk is associated with the act that might harm the individual. The act of reasonableness includes
the factors like permanently removing the risk. The concept of vicarious liability creates the
obligation over the restaurant owner. The restaurant owner should have taken reasonable ace in
order to avoid such incidences. Every employee in the restaurant was aware about the rusted
door as it was the part of the premises (Mendelson, 2007). Vicarious liability pours the burden on
the employer for the deeds of the employee. In order to draw the obligation of the staff a

Business law Assignment 4
relationship test has to be conducted. Due measures should have been take to avoid such
incidence. As per the Donoghue v Stevenson, it was very well stated that the manufacturers have
a final duty of care to the customers. In case of any fault a part of the manufacture, he solely will
be liable to pay off the damages there is no need of having a contractual relationship or privity to
sue for the negligence. The given situation is a direct incidence due to which the plaintiff
suffered injuries. The door was rusted and unusable. The employees were known to the fact that
this might affect anyone who uses it (Steele, 2010). Although intoxicated, Larry has a right to
seek damages for the negligence on the part of the employees. There is a direct duty to take due
care in order to avoid any such accidents. The risk was foreseeable and the damages were also
known (Harpwood, 2009).
However, in the given situation, the person is already intoxicated and was not aware. In
such a situation he is equally liable for the act. He met with an accident due to his ignorant
attitude. The accident would have been avoided if he was not intoxicated. Wrongs act 1958, Sec
26 states that in case of damage faced due to the negligence of the claimant, he has to pay
equivalent amount of damages. The act of contributory negligence creates an obligation on both
the parties. This is due to the factor that the individual has not taken effective measures to avoid
the risk. The claimant is equally liable for the risk caused due to his ignorant attitude. The
purpose here is to meet the effective measures in order to understand the amount of damages that
is caused due to the contributory negligence. Hence, it is clear that the foreseability of the risk is
associated with the act that might harm the individual. The act of reasonableness is to be
conducted simultaneously while considering the overall factors (Mulheron, 2016).

Business law Assignment 5
References
Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., & Trindade, F. (2012). The law of torts in Australia. Oxford
University Press.
Deakin, S. F., Johnston, A., & Markesinis, B. (2012). Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford
University Press.
Giliker, P.(2010). Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University
Press
Harpwood, V. H. (2009). Modern Tort Law 7/e. Routledge.
Lunney, M., & Oliphant, K. (2008). Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press.
Mendelson, D. (2007). The new law of torts. Oxford University Press.
Mulheron, R. (2016). Principles of Tort Law. Cambridge University Press.
Steele, J. (2010). Tort Law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.