Hill Top Cafe Case Study

There are several issues which arise from this case of the Hill Top Café which owned by Anneke. For the first circumstance, a general issue which concerning the tort of negligence is considered. The problem is that has Anneke been negligence. Then, in the subsequent situation, it includes the general issues about vicarious liability and negligence, and the particular issue of claims for physical injuries. Therefore, does Anneke have a vicarious liability should be concerned and has Ivan been negligence for the lamp post and Steve’s motorbike. Meanwhile, who has the responsibility to compensate the injury of Steve?

The issue of vicarious liability arises in employment situations and there are two main questions should be considered.
1. Was

However, if an action is done during the course of employment and it is done followed the expressly or impliedly awarded by the employer, furthermore, the employer may foresee and forbid the activity which will cause loss and damages or even the tort was committed for the employee’s own fraudulent purposes, the employer will not relieve from liability.
Another consideration is that the victim can sue the tortfeasor or the party vicariously liable, or both as joint tortfeasors.
This was established in Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd.

There are three criteria which should be proved by plaintiffs to be able to sue successfully in negligence action.
1. The duty of care
The plaintiff must indicate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care which means a person has a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid actions or omissions when he or she can foresee a loss or damage to someone who is in a proximate relationship to he or she due to his or her careless.
2. Breach of the duty of care
If the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, the courts will go on to determine whether the defendant is in breach of the duty of care by using an estimated approach. The approach will reflect whether the defendant breach the standard of care when a reasonable person is in the similar circumstances and what he or she will

It makes waiters need to shoo them away frequently. As an owner of this café, Anneke has the responsibility to know this situation of her outside courtyard and also has the duty to provide a comfortable and safe environment for her customers. However, Anneke breach the duty of care because she did not take any actions to avoid pigeons looking for food or make signs to warn her customers carefully of this situation. Consequently, a customer fell off her chair and her expensive laptop computer broke because of the pigeon and this should be foresee by Anneke. Therefore, the loss also corresponds with the third element of