USC BUS503: Duty of Care Case Study - Ravi and Archana's Legal Battle

This assignment presents a case study centered on the legal concept of duty of care, involving a scenario between Ravi and Archana. The case explores the responsibilities of a manager (Ravi) and the consequences of his negligence, which led to an accident causing physical injury to Archana. The analysis delves into whether Ravi owed Archana a duty of care and if he breached this duty. It investigates the element of damage, specifically the types of damages Archana is entitled to, including physical and financial damages, and the loss of her job. The assignment also examines potential defenses Ravi could use to counter Archana's claims. The legal principles of duty of care, negligence, and defenses are applied throughout the analysis, with references to relevant legislation and legal concepts. The case study underscores the importance of managerial responsibility, the legal implications of negligence, and the various elements required to establish a successful duty of care claim. The analysis considers the extent of interference and how it relates to the legality of the case. Finally, the assignment highlights the potential defenses Ravi might employ, such as obvious risk and contributory negligence, and evaluates their validity within the context of the case.

1
Duty of care
Name:
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

2
INTRODUCTION
Duty of care refers to the responsibility that a person or a business takes to ensure that he
or she does not cause any mistakes that can endanger others harming them in the process(Foley
and Christensen,2016). An example of a duty of care is a doctor ensuring that all his surgical
tools are well cleaned to ensure that the surgery goes as planned and does not harm the patient. If
it happens that anything happens in the surgical room that leads to the harm of the patient and it
is caused by sanitary issues of sanitary tools the patient can sue for duty of care. This is because
the harm that may happen to the patient is caused by the surgeon failing to take responsibility.
THE ASSESSMENT
The assessment is a case between Ravi and Archana. Ravi was negligent to his duties as
a manager and failed to check up on the mess which led to an accident that hurt Archana’s lower
back. The assesement is trying to find out whether Ravi owed Archana a duty of care and if Ravi
breached the duty of care.It is also trying to find out the element of damage and the type of
damages that she will be entitled to if she wins her case. It also tries to find out the type of
defences that Ravi may apply in his effort to make Archana drop her case against him. Legal
principles of law are to be applied throughout the case to ensure that the case is legally within
the law.
DUTY OF CARE
Ravi owed Archana duty of care at the time of the accident that led to Archana hurting
herself. This is because once Dara told him about the awful mess it was his responsibility as the
manager of the hotel to go check up on it so as to avoid any accidents just like the one that
happened to Archana. There was negligence by Ravi in the duty of care because if he would have
gone to check up on the mess rather get destructed by Lakshmi no harm would have happened to
Archana because the mess would have been cleaned up. He chose to abandon his managerial
responsibilities and focus on the fact that she likes Lakshmi. This thus shows that Archana would
have a case against Ravi because of his negligence to his duty. This is a worthy case because he
did not neglect to check up on the mess to perform other managerial duties, he did it so as to

3
please Lakshmi. The legal principle of rights may not extend as far as claimed is used in
justifying Archana’s case. This is applied whereby there has to be a legal right in the case. In
Archana’s case she has a legal right because it is defined in law for a duty of care case to stand
one has to be have harmed. The second part of this principle is, once the case is determined to be
of legal right it should be proven that the plaintiff is within that legal right. This principle works
for this case because Ravi was negligent to his duties that woul lead to the harm of another party
making it a legal right in the case brought by archana. The second part is also justified whereby
Archana was hurt by the mess showing the case she brought forward was within the legal right.
The principle therefore works in the favour of Archan helping her make a case of duty of care
against Ravi.
The fact that Ravi was negligent to check up on the mess helps Archana build a case.
This is because it forms basis for the case of duty of care. She would argue that the fact that she
hurt her back means that some harm was done to her. She would then argue that the harm that
was caused to her was as a result of negligence of duty of Ravi. She would argue that if Ravi was
responsible and performed his duty accordingly, she would not have been harmed. This is
because he would have gone checked up on the mess. He would then clean it up or supervise a
member to clean it and ensure that it’s in the right condition and it cannot cause any harm to the
customers or even the staff. This would have showed that he takes responsibility of his duty to
Archana(Fulbrook,2017). Archana would argue these facts and if this was done in the right way
no harm would have happened to her. And she would have gone home safe.

4
ELEMENT OF DAMAGE
Element of damage is common in most lawsuits. This refers to damage that is caused by
an individual to another individual for example damages that are caused due to negligence of
duty of care. This is because an individual who has brought a case is a person who has suffered
some type of damage. There are different type of damages in a lawsuit. There are physical
injuries where one is usually injured and he or she requires medical attention. There is also an
element of damage known as loss of consortium that is caused by one being negligent. There are
very many different types of damages financial, property damages and many other damages that
one suffers (Hawkins,2018).
The case of Archana has some type of element of damage. For this case to be legal
Archana has to prove element of damage because with no harm involved there is no duty of care
caused by Ravi to Archana. This is because yes there was negligence but it did it not lead to any
harm. Therefore, for a duty of care case to be considered legal there has to be some type of
damage that is usually caused(Scott,2017).
Archana has different type of damages that were caused to her by Ravi negligence. The
first type of damage that she would argue with is physical damage. Physical damage was caused
because she sustained an injury on her lower back when she fell down and she requires surgery.
This thus shows that some physical damage was caused to her due to negligence by Ravi. There
was also some financial damage that was caused to Archana. This is because she will need some
money to perform the surgery which will be expensive(Spamann,2016).This financial damage
would have been avoided if only Ravi was responsible and it would have saved Archana the
money that she will require in order for the surgery to be performed.
Archana would also argue an element of damage of loss of her job at Safeway. This is
because once Archana undertakes a successful surgery, she will have to stay at home for at least
a few months as she undertakes her medication. The negligence of Ravi has that’s brought the
harm of Archana losing her job and a potential means of her paying her bills or her being able to
pay her fees to facilitate her studies at USC.

5
There are therefore three type of element of damages that were cause by Ravi to Archana
due to lack of duty of care. This include physical damage, financial damage and the loss of her
job(O'Connor,2019 )Archana would argue using this different type of damages to show that
some harm was caused to her due to the lack of responsibility caused by Ravi. This will form
basis for her case because there was some harm caused to her dude to the negligence of Ravi.
The principle of extent of interference in most cases is used to determine if there is an element of
damage in any case that may be brought up. If the extent of interference concludes that the
interference is minimal the case may not go forward. In this scenario the extent of interference
was a lot because Archana injured her lower back and has to leave her job. The principle of
extent of inference will therefore prove that the elemnt of damage was not minimal justifying the
legality of her case against Ravi.

6
DUTY OF CARE DEFENCES
Lawsuits are usually common with defences. If one party sues another party in a
particular case. The lawyers of the party that is being sued will always come up with a specific
type of defence to try and make the case against the other party null and void. In a duty of care
care there are different type of defences that the party that is being sued can try to use in order to
win the case.
The first type of defence that one can use include that the risk that was involved in
obvious( Porat, 2017). This usually means risks that usually don’t happen often because they are
those of common knowledge whereby one could just avoid the risk, Ravi would argue that the
mess that had happened was an obvious risk that one could have easily avoided. He would to
argue that most people that were at the party were able to avoid the mess because it was an
obvious risk.
There is also the risk of contributory negligence. This is a situation whereby the plaintiff
fails to take good care of their own safety and in the end leads to an accident (Barry,2017). Ravi
can use this as a defence that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence. This is
because as everybody at the party was aware of the mess so Archana was also aware but her
feelings towards Ravi destructed her and she neglected the risk and this led her to falling down
and hurting herself in the process.
There is also the risk of dangerous recreational activity. This is whereby one ignores an
obvious risk because of the fact that he or she has undertaken a recreational activity. Ravi can
also use this defence to try and win the case. This is because once Archana saw Ravi with her
friend, she felt jealous and this caused her to drink more vodka in the process making her more
drunk. Ravi would argue that at the time of the accident Archana had undertaken a dangerous
recreational activity of drinking too much alcohol thus making her to misjudge situations and
that is the reason why the accident happened.
There is also voluntary assumption of risk. this is whereby one knows that one knows that
there is a risk but chooses to assume it for some reason. Ravi can try to use this to try and in the
case. This is because he would say that Archana was fully aware of the mess but decided to

7
assume it in order for her to try and impress Ravi and grab his attention. All this are the type of
defences that Ravi will try to use in order to try and in the case against Archana. Theprinciple
of defences found in legislation may restrict the rights of a case. There are some laws that
usually put in place that usually restrict some rights even if the rights are legal and in the
constitution they are restricted the case cannot stand. The efences that ravi tried to bring against
Ravi had no right restricted in the legislation therefore they woul not be considered. This
principle therefore helped Archana in justifying her case.
The case against Ravi of duty of care would stand because of the extensive damages that
were caused her. Even though Ravi would try to bring up his defences the damages that were
cause to Archana are too much and thus they need to be compensated by Ravi. The type of
damages that need to be compensated include physical damages, financial damages and loss of
her job(Lyons, 2015).
PHYSICAL DAMAGE
The first damage that she would be entitled to is that of physical damage, this is because
she was intensely hurt by the negligence of duty and she will need medical attention including
surgery of her lower back. This would force Ravi to take care of her medical bills until she is
back in a healthy condition that she was in before the accident took place
FINANCIAL DAMAGE
The other damage is financial damage. This is caused by the fact that she will have to
leave her job because of the situation that she was put in by Ravi. Archana is still undertaking
studies and she needs a means to take care of her school fees and other bills that need to be
payed. This is because for the time that she will be bedridden she will need to take care of her
bills and because this is extra costs that ere cause by the negligence of Ravi, he would be forced
to take care of this extra fees. He would this until Archana is in a position to take care of her bills
again this is because she is in this situation because of the negligence of Ravi.

8
CONCLUSION
The case involving Archana and Ravi shows us what is legally accepted in order to form
a case of negligence of duty of care. It shows us one should take responsibility for his duties that
can lead to harm to others. The principle of no hierarchy of rights as used in this case. This
usually means no right of one indivual are greater than another individual. Critical analysis of the
case between Archana and Ravi considered bboth their rights equally. It as then concluded the
negligence of Ravi affected Archana. This is Shown by, if Ravi had undertaken his
responsibility as a manager and checked up on the mess no harm would have come to Archana
because the mess would have been cleaned up. It also shows for one to form a duty of care case
there should be some element of damage that should have been caused that shows lack of
responsibility caused the other party harm. In the case involving Archana and Ravi the damaged
caused is physical because she hurt her lower back. There is also a financial damage because she
will need to take care of the financial bills an also since she lost her job, she will won’t have any
other means of taking care of her bills causing financial damage. This damage caused forms the
case for duty of care case towards Ravi. Therefore, it shows one should always take care of his
responsibility in order to avoid harm that is caused to others due to their negligence according to
Law(2015).

9
REFERENCES
Barry, C., 2017. Statutory modifications of contributory negligence at common law. Precedent
(Sydney, NSW), (140), p.12.
Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).
Fulbrook, J., 2017. Outdoor activities, negligence and the law. Routledge.
Hawkins, D., 2018. Breach of Duty of Care. Wisconsin Law Journal.
Law, C., 2015. Duty of care and vicarious liability explored in WorkCover decision.
Lyons, A., 2015. Duty of care. Good Practice, (12), p.24.
O'Connor, R., 2019. A duty of care.
Porat, A., 2017. Inducing Negligence.
Scott, P., 2017. Duty to care has never been more relevant. Emergency Nurse.
Spamann, H., 2016. Monetary Liability for Breach of the Duty of Care?. Journal of Legal
Analysis, 8(2), pp.337-373.