MGMT1601 Business Law: Analyzing Negligence & Duty of Care

This case study delves into a negligence claim against Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd, focusing on whether the company breached its duty of care to Brandon, who sustained injuries during a horse riding accident. The analysis identifies legal principles such as negligence, exclusion clauses, and contributory negligence. It assesses the elements of negligence—duty of care, standard of care, damage, and causation—establishing a prima facie case against the company. The study also considers potential defenses, including the exclusion clause in the waiver signed by Brandon and contributory negligence. Furthermore, it outlines the types of damages Brandon could claim, such as general damages for pain and suffering and pecuniary loss for medical expenses and lost income. Finally, it identifies crucial witnesses and pieces of evidence, including the waiver, employee testimonies, hospital records, and Brandon's pay slips, essential for proving or disproving negligence and determining liability. Desklib offers a range of resources, including similar case studies and past papers, to aid students in their studies.

Running Head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University:
AuthorNote

1BUSINESS LAW
Answer 1: Legal principles involved in this case
The first legal principle involved in this case study requires identification of whether
there was negligence on the part of Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd due to which damage was
sustained by Brandon. The second legal principle that can be applied in this case study is the
existence of exclusion clause. The third legal principle existing in the case study is contributory
negligence on the part of Brandon.
Answer 2: Essential elements of negligence actions in relation to Brandon’s case
It is to be stated in relation to the case study that for establishing negligence it has to be proved
by the plaintiff that the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff as held in the case
Donoghue vs. Stevenson. It can be assessed by the use of an objective test. In this case it can be
assessed that Hoof Hearted Adventures Ltd had a duty to Brandon as he was their client. The
second element is Standard of care. It is important to assess whether sufficient care was taken
by the person to avoid any potential damage to anyone by the use of “Reasonable person” test
(Epstein & Sharkey, 2016). In this case it was found that the buckles on the saddle of the horse
was broken, therefore it can be established that due care was not taken by the company. The third
element is Damage sustained by the plaintiff. In this case damage was physical as well as
economic damage was suffered by Brandon. The fourth element is causation of the damage
which is identified by the ‘but for’ test. In this case, it can be noted that the plaintiff would not
have sustained any damage had it not been for the negligent action of the company. Thus it can
be established there was negligence on the part of the company.

2BUSINESS LAW
Answer 3: Defenses that Hoof Hearted Adventures may have
In this chosen case study, Hoof adventures can rely on the exclusion clause which was
overlooked by Brandon while signing the waiver. The company can rely on the partial defense of
contributory negligence on the part of Brandon as well (Goudkamp & Nolan, 2017).
Answer 4: The kind of damages that could be claimed by Brandon
Brandon could claim general damages from the company for suffering as a result of pain,
loss of employment and disfigurement. He is eligible to claim damages for pecuniary loss which
covers the medical expenses incurred (Luntz et al., 2017). He is also eligible to claim damages
for the loss of income which covers actual loss of income to till the date of trail as well as the
capacity to earn thereafter.
Answer 5: Identify five important witnesses or pieces of evidence
It is to be mentioned that in cases of negligence the burden is on the aggrieved party to
prove that there was negligence on the part of the defendant. The defendant in turn has to
produce evidence and witness that could limit his liability. Therefore in this case the five
important witnesses and evidences are:
 The waiver- The waiver is an important evidence as it contained the exclusion clause
which could potentially limit the liability of the company
 The employee who was present while the waiver was signed by the Brandon- Such
employee can testify that Brandon had signed the waiver overlooking the exclusion
clause in a hurry

3BUSINESS LAW
 The employee who gave the saddles to Brandon- The employee had admitted saying
that he was negligent enough to give Brandon the defective saddles
 The hospital staff- The hospital staff are relevant witnesses as they can testify for the
injuries sustained by Brandon
 Pay-slip of Brandon is a relevant evidence as it will be essential to prove the income
prior to the incident.

4BUSINESS LAW
References List
Epstein, R. A., & Sharkey, C. M. (2016). Cases and materials on torts. Wolters Kluwer Law &
Business.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G., & Harder, S. (2017). Torts:
cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
Goudkamp, J., & Nolan, D. (2017). Contributory negligence on appeal.