Tort Of Negligence Case Study

Introduction:

The tort of negligence is a legal factor that creates liability for harm that can be deemed as foreseeable and preventable. In this case, the harm that has been caused can be deemed foreseeable and most definitely could have been prevented. As Annie’s injury has resulted due to slipping on undisclosed matter on the pubs premises, Annie can legally initiate a civil suite against the manager on duty, Brett, as he was negligent to provide a safe environment and neglected duty of care. Annie, under the circumstances has the right to take action against the bar manager for compensatory damages for personal injury suffered as a result of Brett’s negligence. As the plaintiff, Annie holds the burden of proof and must prove on the elements of the balance of probability that the defendant owed her a duty of care and failed to do so.

Duty of Care:

The law states that the reasonable foreseeability test is a appropriate regime to establish the extent to which a duty of care is owed in events leading to physical damages with ‘spill-over’ effects, and negligence from the defendant is a contributing factor. The test is a regime to establish weather the accused owes a duty of care and looks to the foreseeability of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant. It was stated in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) that the reasonable person is meant to suggest an average, ordinary person of no special distinction. In this respective case, it can be distinguished that Brett, the defendant, is not of a reasonable nature as he is a qualified bar manager and neglected to provide a duty of care by placing his priorities first and neglecting health and safety regulations. Consequently, rather than putting his own insignifican...

... middle of paper ...

...easonable judgement, as intoxication has affected the plaintiff’s normal conscious and therefore contributing to the slipup and the harm that was caused.

Conclusion

Through the analysis of this case study and in-depth research that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care and has failed to do so. Breach has occurred be failing to do as what a reasonable person would do with retrospect to the definition and guidelines of Section 9, CLA 2003 resulting in the harm that has been caused. It is evident from the evidence and argument being provided that the defendant will most likely be found guilty for failing to provide a duty of care under the circumstances of being negligent and would be required to pay compensatory damages to the plaintiff, such as the cost of medical bills, loss of income and pain and suffering due the results of the defendants negligence.