Business Law LAW1702 Assignment: Negligence Analysis Report

This business law assignment analyzes a case of negligence involving an elevator accident in Ontario. The student examines the legal principles of negligence, including duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages, applying them to the facts of the case. The analysis considers relevant legislation, such as the proposed Reliable Elevators Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The assignment also assesses the risk management plan of the business, evaluating its effectiveness in preventing negligence. The student highlights the importance of a comprehensive risk management plan to ensure the safety of users and uphold ethical business practices. The assignment uses the case to illustrate the application of negligence principles and the significance of risk management in a business context.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
BUSINESS LAW
Introduction
In July 2016 at Ontario, Kenneth Smookler (Plaintiff) suffers an injury while
using an elevator of Condominium Corporation. Thereafter, Smookler bought an
action of negligence against the Schindler Elevator Company and Toronto condo
corporation for the manufacturing and use of faulty products and also for their failure
to maintain the elevator properly. In the suit, he claimed damages amounting to
$25,000 for the physical injury caused to him due to the malfunctioning the elevator
stopped 25 centimeters above the floor. Because of such an accident, he developed
severe pain in his leg and foot due to infection in the joint and as per the doctor’s
report; he might have to undergo several surgeries. Smookler contended that
Schindler did not follow his duty to manufacture a defect-free product and the
company was more focused to ensure their own profits by making cheap products.
However, Schindler contended that they took all reasonable measures to fulfill their
duty towards the elevator and the plaintiff was not careful enough while taking steps
and the accident might have occurred due to other physical illnesses.
Negligence analysis
To scrutinize this case under the wrong of negligence, the court needs to take
into account the factors of negligence that influenced the case. In addition to this, the
case needs to be considered under the Bill 109 of Reliable Elevators Act and
Consumer Protection Act. As per the proposed Bill 109 of Reliable Elevators Act,
every lift needs to be repaired within 14 days of receiving the first complaint about its
malfunctioning by the contractor responsible for the maintenance. In this case,
though the application of such provision depends on circumstantial evidence, as the
contractor did not get information about any malfunctioning of the lift by the company

2
BUSINESS LAW
or building an author or any person. While deciding the fact on the ground of
negligently denying duty of reasonable care, the court needs to look into various
case judgments in similar cases. In one of the negligence the case, the court held
that a person who has to maintain a standard of duty of care, cannot run away from
their liability by giving excuses like non-involvement of the other party in the service.
Bill 109 further states that one of the purposes of this bill is to amend the definition of
consumer and include an elevator-maintenance contractor under the provision of
Consumer Act, 2002. In the present case, the building owners or flat owners are the
consumers and Schindler was the service provider. To determine the liability under
this case, the court needs to look at the facts of negligence in this case based on the
breach of consumer rights. In another case, the court was of the opinion that there
must exist a contractual relationship between the consumer and manufacturer for a
claim of negligence. However, the findings of the judgment have been overruled in
the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. The court while discussing negligence in
Donoghue v. Stevenson, held that, even if there was no contractual relationship
between the plaintiff and the defendant, if the defendant’s negligent action causes
loss to the plaintiff, then the defendant can be held liable for damages. In this case,
though Smookler and Schindler Company do not have any direct contractual
relationship if circumstantial facts proved that Schindler was negligent on their part to
take proper care of the elevator then Smookler can ask for damages from Schindler
for negligence. In another case of Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd, the
court held that every business organization owes a duty of care towards its
customer (in this case the user of lifts are the customer) in cases where dangers
associated with the business they are dealing with. The court further held that every
business must ensure its duty to meet the standard of care, especially when the

3
BUSINESS LAW
danger associated with the business is foreseeable and its breach can attract
damages by causing loss to the plaintiff. These essential elements that consist of
negligence must be ensured by the defendant so that any person injured from the
business cannot claim that the injury caused to them because of breach of
defendant's duty to maintain a standard of care. In another case, the court
removed the requisites of privity of contract and enacted product liability rule for the
defendant for the manufacturing of those consumer goods, which can cause bodily
injury to the consumer through its defective features.
Considering the facts of the case (nationalpost.com, 2017), it can be stated
that, the defendant company-defendant company was unable to maintain four
essential elements of negligence, they are - duty, breach, causation, and
damages, the company can be held liable for negligence. However, there is no
proper evidence of a breach of duty or ill maintenance of lift provided by Smookler to
prove the prima facie case against the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be concluded
from the facts and evidence related to the case that the defendant’s negligence
caused injury to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff’s injury is remote and if there was
the presence of any direct evidence to prove the prima facie case against the
defendant company, then the would have definitely held liable for damages for
negligence.
Risk management plan assessment
The risk management plan of a business includes the policies and measures
designed to minimize undesirable risks in business. Compliance standard in case of
risk management process varies from industry to industry. However, risk
management can be referred to as disclosure to the risk and then initiating action to

4
BUSINESS LAW
eliminate or reduce the risk. In case of risk management to mitigate the risk to
commit a negligent act, the duty owner must take reasonable steps (Crocker v.
Sundance Resorts). In this case, it is evident that there was no risk management
plan than Schindler have to ensure the safety of the user of the elevator. To ensure a
proper risk management plan for the future business, the elevator company must
make a plan which ensures that the security standard of the elevator is such as no
person will get injured for any negligent conduct of the defendant. The risk plan must
ensure the duty of care of the defendant towards the persons using it to ensure the
maintenance of the lift regularly for safety. In case of any accident in the future, the
risk management plan must show that the company took a reasonable standard of
care as a professional towards the plaintiff to ensure business ethics. The business
plan must ensure that the guidelines of this plan are only applicable to people who
are proximate relationship with the Schindler company.

5
BUSINESS LAW
Reference
Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 SCR 1186
nationalpost.com. (2017). Ontario man sues elevator company for $25,000 over fall from the
elevator that stopped too high. Retrieved 10 February 2020, from
https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/ontario-man-sues-elevator-company-for-25000-
over-fall-from-elevator-that-stopped-25-centimetres-above-the-floor