Negligence Claim Against Mall Authorities

This assignment examines a negligence claim brought against mall authorities by Ronald, who suffered injuries due to a fire. It analyzes the elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, and causation, applying legal principles from landmark cases like Donoghue v Stevenson and Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital. The analysis concludes that the mall breached its duty of care towards Ronald, leading to his injuries, and therefore a claim for negligence can be made.

Running head: TORT LAW
Tort law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TORT LAW
Issue
The issue which has been identified in this case is to determine that whether the tort of
negligence has been committee by the Mall authorities against Ronald.
Relevant rules
1. Duty of care
The concept of negligence has become prominent in the legal world since the case of
Donoghue v Stevenson1. In this case the court held that even where there is not relationship
between two person which could make them have a legal claim against each other such as a
contractual relationship, they can make a claim if there is a duty of care owed by a person to
another.
The concept which gave rise to the duty of care is known as the neighbor principle which had
been brought to the legal area through the case of Donogue v Stevenson. The court in this case
ruled that like a good neighbor has a duty of care to protect his neighbor form any adverse action
caused by him which could have an effect on the neighbor, in the same way people owe a duty of
care to others if their actions can cause injury to the other person foreseeably.
In the case of Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant2 it was ruled by the court that if a
reasonable person thinks that his action can cause harm to another person through his action the
defendant is said to have a duty of care towards the plaintiff.
1 1932 AC 522
2 50 C. L. R. 387

2TORT LAW
2. Breach of the duty of care
The breach of duty of care is also one of the most essential elements to establish that
whether a negligence claim can be established or not. Even if a person owes a duty of care and
harm has been caused to the other person a negligent action cannot be established if the duty of
care was not violated by the plaintiff.
The most common law test for the violation of the duty of care is the objective test which
had been established by the landmark case of Vaughan v Menlove3 in this case it was provide
by the judges that in case of a negligent claim a reasonable person has to be placed in the place
of the defendant and then it has to be analyzed that the reasonable person would have been more
careful towards his actions or not. If it is found that the reasonable person would have been extra
careful as compared to the defendant the duty of care is said to be violated by the defendant.
In the case of Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor4 it had been ruled b the court that a
person cannot be held negligent in relation to the violation of the duty of care unless the risk
which was associated with the situation was foreseeable which means that it was a risk which a
person would have knowledge about or would likely to have known about the existence of such
risk. In addition the person cannot be held to have violated the duty of care unless it is
established that there was a significant harm involved in the case. In addition the case also cited
the principle used by the Vaughan case in relation to a reasonable person taking extra precaution.
These provisions have also been discussed in the civil liabilities Acts of the respective states.
In the case of D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane5 it was
provided by the court that whether a reasonable person would have been subjected to taking
3 (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467
4 [2014] NSWCA 394
5 [2017] QSC 103

3TORT LAW
enhanced care in relation to a situation has to be analyzed in the light of likelihood of the harm
being caused in case the additional care has not been taken. The seriousness which is likely to be
involved in the harm also has to be analyzed in order to determine the actions of a reasonable
person. The social utility of the risk and the burden of proof in relation to taking extra
precautions are also taken to identify the actions of a reasonable person.
3. Causation
As per the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital6 which provided the “but
for” test in order to determine causation if the harm have been avoided if the plaintiff was not
negligent than the causation is said to be established.
Application
1. Duty of care
In the given situation as per the neighbor principle discussed above there is a duty of care
owed by the mall to the workers and the patrons. This is because the mall can reasonably foresee
that others associated with the mall can be harmed because of any negligence of the mall.
2. Breach of the duty of care
In order to determine whether the duty of care has been violated the above discussed
principles have to be applied to the facts of the case.
Although the door had the signs of being fire doors the signs were not visible to a person
as Greg has kept the door open using a wedge. A reasonable person would have not done so
given the probability of fire and the likely significance of the harm. In addition the security
person employed by the mall who works as its agent also did not take any action knowing that
6 [1969] 1 QB 428

4TORT LAW
the doors were not supposed to be kept open. As a security personal he would have realized the
risk of the harm and the likelihood and the significance of the harm which can be caused due to
fire. It was probable that as there is a food court on the floor where fire is used for cooking the
probability of fire being cased is high. In addition after being informed about the situation via a
letter posted by Sally the mall authority did not take any action which a reasonable person would
have taken to avoid the harm. Thus it can be said that the duty has been breached.
3. Causation
The harm as per the “but for” test would not have been caused to Ronald if proper care
would have been taken and the doors would have been kept closed by the mall authorities. Thus
the element of factual causation is also present.
Conclusion
Therefore it can be concluded that as the Mall had a duty of care towards Ronald, which
have been breached because of not taking reasonable care in the given circumstances and which
further was the cause of the injury suffered by Ronald, a claim can be made by Ronald against
the Mall for negligence.

5TORT LAW
Bibliography
Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant 50 C. L. R. 387
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428
D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] QSC 103
Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor [2014] NSWCA 394
of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 522
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467