Business Law Case Study: Evaluating Negligence Elements & Claims

This case study analyzes a negligence claim in business law, focusing on the four essential elements: duty of care, standard of care, damage, and causation. It examines a scenario where John sustained injuries at a clubhouse and seeks compensation. The analysis evaluates whether John can prove his case by satisfying all elements of negligence, considering the clubhouse's precautions and John's own actions. The study also considers potential defenses for the bowling alley and concludes with an assessment of the likelihood of John winning the case based on the evidence and legal principles. Desklib provides this and other solved assignments for students.

Page1
BUSINESS LAW
There are four essential elements of Torts of Negligence which must be proved in
affirmation by the plaintiff to get compensation. These are –
1. Duty of Care
2. Standard of Care
3. Damage
4. Causation
In this case study of John, we take a look at the circumstances and try to conclude
whether John is able to prove his case by satisfying all these elements.
1: Duty of Care
Of course John suffered injuries which resulted from the accident, but the
defendant had not given any assurance to John when he entered the clubhouse about any
obligations on their part in case of an accident. The clubhouse had not put in writing
anywhere on the premise that any injuries while playing will entitle the injured to any
compensation. The defendant did not assure of any Duty of Care to John1. On the Guest
Pass, which entitled John for a Free Session at the bowling alley, John was promised of
an ‘all-inclusive' state of the art facilities.
2: Standard of Care
John got injured more because of his carelessness compared to negligence on the
part of the clubhouse. He failed to notice the sign which clearly stated the condition of
the floor. This is an important aspect under Tort of Negligence and the court is going to
make this as the basis for believing that John did not live up to being a reasonable
person. Based on this theory, the court2 is going to conclude that John must be held
responsible, even if partly, since he got injured because of his own negligence.
3: Damage
1 Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2012 ONSC 4642
2 Annapolis County District School Board v. Marshall, 2012 SCC 27

Page2
John suffered injuries which resulted in a twisted ankle, bruised knees and
sprained wrists when he fell down the stairs3. John not only incurred medication costs
because of the injuries, these injuries also resulted in his losing salary as he could not
attend to his duties as a full time landscaper.
4: Causation
The Supreme Court of Canada4 has reaffirmed through many case laws that for a
plaintiff to succeed purely on the basis of establishing negligence is not possible unless
the ‘but for’ element is established. Through this element John has to prove that he
would not have suffered the injuries ‘but for’ the negligent act of the defendant. Courts
apply the ‘but for’ test in a "common sense fashion". John is not in a firm position to
pass this ‘but for’ test as he himself was careful enough while going down the stairs.
Defence of Bowling Alley
The available evidence of John’s own capabilities and potential at the time of
accident is more relevant in assessing his loss of income than the responsibility of the
clubhouse management.
The clubhouse had placed a sign saying ‘CAUTION: Uneven Flooring, Watch
Your Step’ at the top of the stairs and John missed this warning.
Even on the Guest Pass, there was no promise of ‘Care’ available at the bowling
alley. Instead, John should have been cautious after a few drinks because of dim lighting
in whole of the clubhouse5.
Claims by John
Compensation to include medical bills not covered by health insurance, lost
income and awards for pain and suffering6.
Conclusion
3 Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32
4 Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp., 2000 BCCA 605
5 Shapiro v. Dailey, 2012 BCCA 128
6 Milliken v. Rome, 2012 BCCA 490

Page3
Based on the above four most important elements of Torts of Negligence, in
which John can hardly claim to have succeeded in passing just two of them, it is highly
unlikely that John will win a case against the Clubhouse.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jamie Cassels and Craig Jones, The Law of Large-Scale Claims: Product Liability,
Mass Torts, and Complex Litigation in Canada (2005).
Philip Osborne, The Law of Torts, 5th ed. (2015).