ATMC BUS503 Case Study: Negligence and Duty of Care at McDonald's

This case study examines a negligence claim arising from an incident at a McDonald's restaurant. Ravi, the manager, is assessed for his duty of care to a customer, Archana, who slipped and fell. The analysis covers whether Ravi owed Archana a duty of care, whether he breached that duty, and if Archana can prove damages. The study delves into the legal principles of negligence, including foreseeable risks, reasonable care, and the elements of damage. It also considers potential defenses, such as contributory negligence, focusing on Archana's actions and any impact on the outcome. Finally, the case study discusses the damages Archana would be entitled to if her claim is successful. The assignment draws upon relevant legislation and case law to provide a comprehensive legal analysis.

Case Study; Archana V Ravi
By Student’s Name
Code + Course Name
Professor’s Name
University Name
City, State
Date
1

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Issue 1; did Ravi owe Archana a Duty of Care at the Time of the Incident?..................................3
Issue 2; can Archana Prove a breach on the Duty of Care owed to her?.......................................4
Issue 3; can Archana prove the element of damage in action against Ravi?..................................5
Issue 4; could Ravi raise any defences?..........................................................................................6
Issue 5; the damages Archana will be entitled to if she is successful in her claim.........................7
General Conclusion.........................................................................................................................8
2

Introduction
Duty of care is a legal instrument that imposes an obligation on an individual to adhere to a set of
standards of reasonable care while performing acts that are a possible risk of harming someone
(Stickley, 2016). These principles of duty of care include;
Whether the imposition of a duty of care would lead to indeterminate liability, whether it may
result in an unreasonable burden on the defendant, the degree of vulnerability the claimant is to
the actions of the claimant, and the degree of knowledge by the defendant on the magnitude of
harm that faces the claimant (Lemming, 2019). This paper will look into the dispute between
Archana and Ravi under the torts.
Issue 1; did Ravi owe Archana a Duty of Care at the Time of the Incident?
Rules; It is essential that at least one of the general principles that the law envisions must be
present. Under the Workplace Health and Safety laws, it is mandatory that the owner of a
business must ensure that the premises that the business is transacted do not create health and
safety concerns to his employees, volunteers, visitors or customers. According to the rationale in
Perre v Apand (1999), it is essential that one shows the existing relationship that leads to the rise
of the defendant owing to the claimant a duty of care. However, if the law does not provide for
the relationship, then the court relies on salient features to establish a duty of care. These features
include the vulnerability of the plaintiff to the actions of the defendants, how much of an impact
the imposition of such duty of care has on the autonomy of the defendant, et cetera. Section 27
through to section 33 of the Civil Liability Act (2003) outlines the minimum conditions that must
be satisfied for one to meet the existence of a duty of care.
Application; Ravi is the manager at McDonald's, this means that he has the overall authority in
running the day to day operations of the cafe. Looking at the provisions of the Workplace Health
and Safety Act (2011), the owner of the business has to ensure that the premises do not pose a
health or safety threat to customers. In this case, the customer is Archana, and the business
owner is Ravi because of his overall authority as the manager. Also, the imposition of a duty of
3

care upon Ravi would not interfere with the principles set out in Perre v Apand (1999); that is, it
would not lead to the interference with the protection of Ravi's business interest as it will only
serve to make him more diligent in ensuring that his premises are free of any safety concerns.
Besides, it would not result in an overburdening Ravi as it is his responsibility for ensuring the
safety of the customers from the entrance until the time they leave the premises. Moreover, Ravi
as aware of the imminent danger that awaited the claimant if they were to walk through the mess
that is why he shouts to find out whether it has been cleaned or not and further decides to go
check it out which he fails.
Conclusion; Ravi meets the threshold that is required to establish the existence of owing a duty
of care to Archana.
Issue 2; can Archana Prove a breach on the Duty of Care owed to her?
Rules; after establishing that one owes you a duty of care, to prove a breach of duty of care owed
to you has to meet the bare minimum set by the laws and legal precedence. The CLA s9 sets out
the general principles that must be met to establish a breach of duty of care. First, there has to be
an element of foreseeable risks. Lord Scarman emphasizes this element in the case of
McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983). Also, it should be proven that a reasonable person not necessarily
the defendant would have acted in a way that he exercises a standard of care; that is, according to
the holding in Orchard v Lee (2009).
Similarly, the risk must not be insignificant. Further subsection 2 outlines the conditions that are
used to ascertain whether the defendant acted reasonably. This raises pertinent questions such as
what is the probability of the harm to occur if the defendant acted with reasonable care, what is
the seriousness of the damage suffered, what is the burden of taking such reasonable care, and
the social utility of the activity that creates the risks.
Application; Ravi as established owes a duty of care to Archana. However, he fails to exercise
reasonable care to ensure the safety of Archana. After being informed by Dara of the mess
created at the entrance, Ravi is aware of the danger that steeping on such a slippery mess would
cause hence he shouts over to ensure whether it has been cleaned. To this point, Ravi satisfies the
4

foreseeable risk test, as stated by the CLA and Lord Scarman in McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983).
Furthermore, Ravi shows discontent from the response he got on cleaning the mess. He,
therefore, thinks of going to check for himself, this implies that he is reasonable and aware of the
vulnerability of any person walking on such a mess. However, Ravi gets distracted Lakshmi and
fails to act, thus prevent harm to anybody walking in and out the McDonald's. Through this
omission, he fails to exercise a standard of care as held in Orchard v Lee (2009). The forensic
study shows that ice cream was poured on top of the vomit forming a double slippery sludge
meaning the vomit was not cleaned as it ought to be and this would have been avoided is Ravi
would have checked, but he got distracted. Archana while leaving the restaurant steps on the
mess and falls fracturing her lower back requiring surgery. This is an epitome of a severe injury,
as stated in S9 (2) of the CLA. It would not cause Ravi an arm and a leg to take reasonable care
by cleaning the mess; thus, he ought to.
Conclusion; Archana can successfully prove that Ravi breached the duty of care owed to her.
Issue 3; can Archana prove the element of damage in action against Ravi?
Rules; In claiming for damages it is vital that the claimant can prove that the injuries suffered
were as a result of a negligent act from the person or organization that owes him a duty of
care(Stapleton, 2015). Secondly, it must be brought to the attention of the court that the breach in
the duty of care is the sole cause of the damages suffered; that is., the remoteness of the damage
suffered. The position of the law, as stated in Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA V Eagle Star
Insurance Co. Ltd (1996) is to always award damages for the harm attributed solely to the
defendant. It is common legal knowledge that there has to be a foreseeable type of harm to be
suffered by the claimant like in the case of Bradford v Robinsons Rental Ltd (1967) where it was
ruled that the defendant was liable for the frostbite suffered by the claimant due to exposure to
cold weather. The means by which the harm as caused as in Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963).
The defendant was held liable for the harm caused on the children, although they did not
envision the exact way the accident would occur, they were still held liable for negligence. Lord
5

Bridge in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) argues that it takes more than just claiming
damages against the defendant, it is important that the claimant to prove that the harm suffered
was within the scope of the duty of the defendant.
Application; It is without a doubt that Ravi acts negligently when Dara informs him of the mess
that was created, he fails to assess the level of harm it poses. As a result, the mess is left
unattended (Hughes v Lord Advocate, 1963) and later Archana slips fracturing her back, this
attributes the remoteness of the harm to the mess not being cleaned. If Ravi had acted, this
damage would not have been suffered (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA V Eagle Star Insurance
Co, 1996). According to the rationale in Bradford v Robinsons Rental Ltd (1967), Ravi is held
accountable for the damage suffered as he can foresee the risks, this is a presumption of fact
from his reaction when he is informed of the mess. As the manager in charge of McDonald's he
is held accountable for the operations and safety of the employees and customers, therefore, this
satisfies Lord Bridge's statement in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) that the damage must
be within the scope of the duty of the defendant.
Conclusion; Archana can prove the elements of damage in action against Ravi.
Issue 4; could Ravi raise any defences?
Rule; It is not always that when the claimant can show the tort of negligence, leading to damage
that he would be rewarded (Field, 2018). There are defences available to the defendant. This is
elements that when the claimant meets results in contributory negligence; that is, it is not solely
that the defendant will be blamed for the damages. To begin with, as the law expects the
defendant to take reasonable care as a reasonable person, so does the law expect the claimant to
act similarly. For instance, when riding a motorcycle, it is important that one wears a helmet and
fastens it like in O'Connell v Jackson (1971).
Moreover. The claimant must be able to take reasonable care as any other reasonable person
would do as stated in Cooper V Carillion Plc. In Purdue V Devon Fire and Rescue Service
(2003), we are shown that the law expects us to act reasonably at all times. In Pursue, the
6

claimant turned his vehicle into an intersection and was hit by a fire truck, he claimed damages
but failed as the law expected him to the siren of the fire machine regardless of the traffic lights.
Application; Archana fails to take reasonable care in that she has had drinks leading to her
intoxication at the restaurant. It is common knowledge that when one voluntarily decides to
intoxicate themselves, there are aware of what may follow. Not even Ravi is aware that he is
sipping vodka from her water bottle. While leaving the restaurant, she is not keen with her steps
and does not bother looking ahead; instead, she turns back to wave. This act is similar in the case
of O'Connell (1971), the claimant a motorcycle rider fails to have his helmet fastened. Also, the
type of shoes she wore demands due diligence when one is walking as one misstep could lead to
an injurious fall. However, Archana fails to observe this defying the rational in Cooper V
Carillion Plc. and Purdue V Devon Fire and Rescue Service (2003) where the law dictates that
the claimant should be able to carry himself in a manner that does not fall below the standard of
care.
Conclusion; the defence of contributory negligence is readily available to Ravi.
Issue 5; the damages Archana will be entitled to if she is successful in her claim
Rule; Lord Atkins in Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd (1940) states that "if
the claimant is was negligent, but his negligence was not a cause operating to produce the
damage there would be no defence. I find it impossible to divorce contributory negligence from
causation."
Application; The presence of the double slippery mess at the entrance posts a great risk to the
customers entering and living McDonald's. Archana while leaving slips on the mess and fractures
her bones. The mess is the operating cause that leads to her falling and acquiring injuries. She is
also forced to give up the part-time job that supported her as a result. Her level of intoxication is
irrelevant same to the types of shoe she wore (based on the thin skull rule the claimant should
take the claimant as she is).
7

Conclusion; Archana is entitled to special compensatory damages that involve the financial loss
because of her job and medical bills.
General Conclusion.
Due to the dynamics and complexity of life, it is important that the laws are reviewed to cater for
special occasions with regards to negligence in business. The Civil Liability Act (CLA) (2003)
has set out remedies for which one can pursue in case of a breach of duty of care. As the
principle states, "no one shall suffer a loss without remedy." However, some conditions must be
met for one to claim damages. Similarly, since the law is a double-edged sword, the claimant
will not always have his way hence the creation of possible defences that enable the defendant to
be exempted from a breach caused by the conduct of the claimant.
8

References
Books, Articles and Journals
Field, I.D., 2018. Contributory Negligence and the Rule of Avoidable Losses. Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, 38(3), pp.475-499. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy007
Leeming, M. (2019). The Statutory foundations of negligence. Federation Press
Plunkett, J. (2018). The Duty of Care in Negligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Stapleton, J., 2015. An ‘Extended But-For ‘Test for the Causal Relation in the Law of
Obligations. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 35(4), pp.697-726.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqv005
Stickley, A.P., 2016. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Legislations
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011(Qld)
Cases
Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA V Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd [1996] UKHL 10
Bradford v Robinsons Rental Ltd [1967] All ER 267
Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152
Cooper V Carillion Plc. In Purdue V Devon Fire and Rescue Service [2003] EWCA Civ 1811
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31
McLoughlin v O’Brian] 1983] 1 AC 410
O'Connell v Jackson [1971] 3 WLR 463
Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295
Perre V Apand [1999] 198 CLR 180
9