BUS503 Assignment: Case Study Analysis on Negligence and Duty of Care

This case study analyzes a negligence claim arising from an incident at a McDonald's restaurant. The analysis begins by determining whether the manager, Ravi, owed a duty of care to Archana, a customer, based on the 'neighbour test' established in Donoghue v Stevenson. It then evaluates whether Ravi breached this duty, considering factors like foreseeability of harm, seriousness of the harm, prevention measures, and utility of conduct. The case study further examines causation, applying the 'but for' test to establish a link between Ravi's actions and Archana's injuries. Finally, it explores the defense of contributory negligence, considering whether Archana's actions, such as intoxication and wearing high heels, contributed to her injuries. The analysis considers the remoteness of damages, and the potential outcomes if Archana were to sue Ravi for negligence. The assignment is a detailed examination of negligence law principles applied to a specific factual scenario.

Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Introduction:
In this case study, the tort of negligence is being considered in the light of duty of care. In
order to prove that negligence has occurred, the claimant has to prove that the defendant has a
duty of care towards the claimant and he had caused breach of it.
ANSWER 1:
Issue:
Whether Ravi owes a duty of care to Archana at the time of the incident?
Law/rule:
In the tort of negligence, duty of care means the situations and relations which are
recognized by law resulting into legal duty to take care (Stickley 2016). A failure to take such
care can make the defendant liable to pay damages to the party who got injured or was suffering
loss due to the breach of such care. Hence in order to claim damages for the loss or injury he
suffered the claimant shall prove that the defendant has for the plaintiff a duty of care. The
presence of the duty of care depends on a number of facts like the type of loss and different legal
tests are there for different losses by applying which whether there lies a duty of care of the
defendant towards the plaintiff can be determined.
In order to establish the presence of duty of care in case of any personal injury the
decision given by Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 can be
referred. The test considered here is called the neighbour test. In this case, Mrs Donoghue went
to a café along with her friend. Her friend bought for her a ginger beer bottle and an ice cream.
The beer bottle was opaque and hence its contents could not be seen from outside. She poured

2CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
some of the drinks on the ice cream and discovered that a decomposed snail came out along with
the drink. Mrs Donoghue suffered some personal injury because of the consumption such drink
and she brought a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer. She succeeded in her claim
against the manufacturer. This case is the landmark case that established the new law of
negligence and this became the principle of neighborhood test. Lord Atkin in this case held that
one must take assure to take reasonable care for avoiding acts or its omissions which can be seen
reasonably that may result into injury or loss to the neighbor.
While considering the application of the neighbor test, the presence of duty of care can be
proved by fulfilling two criteria, the first being the reasonable foresight of harm and the second
one is the relation of proximity between the loss or injury and its cause.
Application:
In the given case, it is seen that Ravi was the manager of the McDonald store and when
the incident happened he was on duty there. Being the manager he had the duty of taking care of
his customers by providing them with proper security and safety. On the day of Archana’s
birthday, he was on duty and since one of the staffs fell sick, he was helping in the counter
cooking and also was tending the bar. Dara is another staff in the store.
Someone had vomited near the main door. Dara had the duty to clean the mess and he
said he had cleaned it up. Ravi being the manager was about to check whether it was cleaned it
up or not. But he totally forgot about it. Hence it is seen that Dara had the main duty towards
Archana as he was assigned to clean it up. However, being the manager, Ravi too had a duty to
ensure that everything was done accordingly. He forgot to check that the mess was cleaned
properly or not. Moreover, as per the forensic investigation, it is also found that someone had

3CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
spilt cream of birthday cake on the vomit which made the floor doubly slippery. If he had already
checked whether Dara had done his task, the accident would not happen. Following the
neighborhood test, it is seen that the accident caused to Archana could be reasonably foreseen as
if the vomiting mess was not cleared properly, anyone can fall by stepping on it. If Ravi
performed his duty properly, he could get the mess cleaned up and Archana would not have
fallen over it. There was a relation of proximity too between the cause and its effect. Since Ravi
did not supervise properly, mess was not cleaned and the accident occurred.
Conclusion:
Thus Ravi had a duty of care towards Archana.
Answer 2
Issue:
Whether Archana can prove that Ravi has breached his duty of acre towards Archana?
Rules/Law:
In order to prove that the duty of care was infringed by the defendant towards the
claimant, the latter must prove it by following objective test.
The breach of duty exists where the defendant does not meet the standard of care
prescribed by law. Once it is proved, that the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff, the
next fact to be proved by the claimant was that the defendant had breached such duty.
In order to prove the breach of duty of care by the defendant, the court must consider few
factors as laid down in the objective test. First is the likelihood of the harm, that is the defendant

4CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
is not expected to provide protection against events that are not foreseeable as seen in Sutherland
Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 case. The next factor is the seriousness of the harm
caused to the plaintiff due to the breach of duty by the defendant as observed in the Wagon
Mound No.2 [1967] 1 AC 617. The court will also consider the cost of prevention as found in the
case of Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 where it was observed that the court also must consider
the precautions taken by the defendants to minimize or eliminate the risk as well the cost
incurred by the defendant for such precaution. Lastly, the court must take in to account the utility
of the conduct of the defendant as found in the case of
Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835. All these factors must be considered by the court in
order to determine whether the defendant has breached his duty of care.
Application:
In the given case, in order to prove that Ravi has breached his duty of care against her,
Archana must establish the conditions given in the objective test.
Firstly, Archana has to show that the harm can be foreseen reasonably. In this case,
Archana fell down as she slipped on the mess created by splitting on cream on vomiting which
resulted into extreme slippery floor. The mess was supposed to be cleaned by Dara and it was to
be supervised by Ravi as he was the floor manager on that night. Ravi once tried to check it but
he completely forgot about it later on. Since the mess was not cleaned properly, anyone could
fell by stepping on it. Hence such harm can be reasonably foreseen.
Secondly she has to establish the seriousness of the harm caused to her. Due to slipping
on the mess, she fell down and got a fracture in her lower back and needs a surgery. Moreover,

5CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
because of the injury, she has to undergo bed rest for few months due to which she will have to
give up her part time job also. hence the injury has serious effect on her life.
Thirdly, Ravi has not taken any prevention to prevent the injury. Hence there is no
question of cost of prevention incurred by the defendant.
Finally, the court will decide the usefulness of the conduct of the defendant. In this case,
it was seen that one of the staffs was absent. So Ravi was helping in the counter cooking. He was
simultaneously tending the bar also. It was a busy night as he had to do manage so many things
and hence he forgot about checking whether such mess was cleaned. However, being the
manager, he must be prepared to do multi tasking.
Conclusion:
Thus considering all these factors, it is seen that Ravi has breached his duty of care
towards Archana.
Answer 3:
Issue:
Whether Archana can succeed in proving the element of damage against Ravi?
Rules:
In order to show the causation in the tort of negligence, the claimant needs to prove that
the loss or injury suffered by him was caused by the defendant (He, Feng and Huang 2016). In
order to prove this, the simple ‘but for’ test must be applied which will resolve this issue, that is,
‘but for’ the action of the defendant, does the plaintiff has incurred the loss; this is the question

6CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
to be resolved. If the answer is affirmative, the defendant cannot be held liable as found in the
case of Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis [2010] HCA 5. When the answer is no, then the defendant is liable
as observed in the case of Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12.
Application:
Following the ‘but for’ test, it is seen that the defendant Ravi was liable. As Ravi has not
performed his duty of supervision well, the plaintiff suffered the injury. If he had checked
whether the mess has been cleaned by the staff Dara, then accordingly, he could have taken steps
that could ensure that no such accident occurs. But due to his negligence, the accident occurred.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Archana would be able to prove the element of damage if she
sues Ravi for negligence.
Answer 4:
In the present case of Archana, Ravi being the main defendant can raise the defence of
contributory negligence to protect himself from the allegation of breach of duty made by plaintiff
Archana.
Contributory negligence arises when lack of care by the plaintiff has resulted in to the
injury or loss suffered by him. It can be used as a full or partial defence by the defendant in the
tort of negligence. Whether the plaintiff has contributed to the loss or injury will be dependent on
the fact that whether he has taken standard care that would have been taken by a reasonable
person in such circumstances as seen in the case of Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286. If the

7CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
court is convinced that the plaintiff was contributory negligent then it can give decide the
liability of the defendant accordingly as observed in Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26.
In the present case, Ravi could claim that Archana was contributory negligent as she was
intoxicated. She took vodka which made him intoxicated. Moreover she was wearing high heels
of 7 inch height for which she must be highly careful. After she slipped on the mess, the high
heel of her shoe broke down from the sole due to which her leg got twisted. Moreover, there
were also other people in the store but everyone except Archana could avoid it..
All these defences can be raised by Ravi in order to escape or reduce his liability for the
injury caused to Archana. The court will take into account all these grounds, and analyze the
extent of negligence by both the plaintiff and defendant Ravi, then it will decide accordingly.
Anwser 5:
In the present case, Archana will be entitled to get damages from Ravi if she could
successfully place her case before the court. While deciding this, the court will consider the
remoteness of damages caused to the claimant. Here the claimant must show that the damages
caused to her must be of foreseeable nature, that the damage can be foreseen by a reasonable
person such that the damage must not be too remote. In this regard the leading case of Chappel v
Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 must be referred.
Thus the facts that Archana has fractured her lower back and the need of surgery together
with bed rest account for immediate damages and Ravi can be held liable for these and court may
order Ravi to pay compensation for these. However, the fact that Archana may lose her part time
job is a matter of controversy. The court will refer to precedent and relevant cases to consider

8CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
whether it is remote to the injury or not. Thus considering the facts of the case, the court will
decide what damages Archana will be entitled to for the loss she suffered.
Conclusion:
Thus from the above discussion, it can be concluded that Ravi is liable for tort of
negligence as he has breached his duty to take reasonable care to Archana.

9CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
References:
Amaca Pty Ltd v Ellis [2010] HCA 5
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286
He, Q., Feng, J.L. and Huang, W.Y., 2016, August. Law of Negligence: Duty of Care, Standard
of Care, and the Notion of Personal Responsibility. In 2016 International Conference on
Management Science and Management Innovation. Atlantis Press.
Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643
Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26
Stickley, A.P., 2016. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424
Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12
Wagon Mound No.2 [1967] 1 AC 617
Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835