Law assessment

  • Category:
    Law
  • Document type:
    Article
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    1
  • Words:
    496

Duty of Care

The duty of care to a neighbour was established under the Donoghue V Stevenson [1932] AC 532 (HL). A neighbour is anyone affected by one’s activity. The Mizuna business has a duty to care for Charlotte. Mizuna had a responsibility to foresee reasonably that the floor could injure their customers. It was heavily raining and it was necessary to double the efforts of drying the floor to avoid injury to the customers like Charlotte. Every reasonable person could have noticed that as it was raining harder, it was necessary to take more precautions. Thus, Mizuna had a duty of care towards to Charlotte.

Breach of Duty of Care

The risk was foreseeable and if care could have been taken the injury would have been avoided. If the risk would not have been predictable Mizuna would have been justified, (Boulton V Stone [1951] AC850). As it has been raining and it was even raining harder that day, the risk was insignificant and every reasonable person should have taken necessary precautions. For instance, Mizuna would have put a large carpet on the floor or put a warning sign on the wet floor at the entrance door. Thus, the failure of Mizuna to take necessary precautions is thus a breach of the duty of care to customers like Charlotte and her friend.

Suffer Damage

With an aim of determining if the violation of the duty of care is a result of the injury, the causation, as well as the remoteness, needs to be considered. There is a need to determine the scope of the liability and responsibility of Mizuna business on their customers during the rainy day. There are many losses already suffered, like Charlotte’s healing got injured and it required a further complex surgery hence she missed a more competitive hockey games for the entire season. Jessie also twisted her wrists and missed her exams. Regarding remoteness, the losses caused by the Mizuna’s breach of contract are not remote more so to Charlotte and Jessie.

Defence by Defendant

It will be necessary to consider the possibility of the negligence as well as the assumption of the risk. Regarding contributory negligence, it was necessary for Jessie and Charlotte to take more care also on the wet floor. The fact that Jessie falls caused Charlotte to fall too and hence loss occurred. Regarding voluntary, Mizuna business cannot possibly defend against voluntary in this scenario.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is a fact that the loss occurred due to Mizuna negligence and breach of the duty of care to their customers. Their failure to take necessary precautions to the wet floor causes Jessie and Charlotte suffer loss. In this regard, Mizuna should cover the entire medical fee as well as any mental health fee for Jessie and Charlotte. Also, if in any case that a deliberate negligence is established, the burden on Mizuna business will reduce. In this case, the money to be paid to Charlotte and Jessie will reduce.