Case Analysis Part II - Coursework Example

In the case of Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985) it was held that a business invitee is entitled to "a duty of ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition so that its customers are not unnecessarily and unreasonably exposed to danger"2 from the owner. This means that an owner is obliged “to keep the premises free from dangers not discernible by a reasonably prudent person and to warn invitees of concealed dangers of which the owner knows or should know”3.

Therefore, I strongly believe that the drugstore owed its visitors, including Booker, a duty of care to maintain a safe environment. 2. I believe that Booker’s lawsuit against the drugstore is based on negligence, and not upon allegations that the storeowners committed an international tort. International torts occur in those cases when the defendant actually has the intention of harming the plaintiff through his actions, like for example: assault, battery, trespass, fraud, etc. On the other hand, according to Stuhmcke A.

, “Negligence is a tort which determines legal liability for careless actions or inactions which cause injury.4 Therefore, in this case we are talking about negligence on behalf of the drugstore. 3. According to Harpwood V., “duty of care, breach of duty and damage”5 are three elements that must be proved by the plaintiff in order to establish actionable negligence. This test was also employed in the case of Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co. (1998), where the judge held that “a plaintiff must show the existence of a duty, a breach of the duty, and an injury proximately resulting there from”6 A duty of care was owed by the drugstore to Booker, as it has been explained in p.1. This duty of care has been breached by having doors which needed a lot of pressure in order to be opened and the coil of the antitheft device situated too close to the second door.

The injury which Booker had suffered resulted strictly from the breach of duty of the drugstore. CHAPTER 6 CASE 2 1. I believe that the Court’s decision should not be reversed by the Appellate court because of the following: there was a contract between the two security corporations and CIA meant to provide security to the latter. Adelman was not a party to this contract and this contract did not refer to him or any other pedestrian at all. Adelman would be entitled to damages from the security corporations and CIA if he were a party to the contract or if the contract would have stipulated protecting the third parties.

As, for example, in the case of Home Office v Dorset (1970) it has been stated that: “…Similarly, if A specifically creates a risk of injury…he may be liable for the resulting damage….Similarly, A may be liable if he assumes specific responsibility for B’s safety but carelessly then fails to protect B..”7 Again, none of the clauses of the contract did specifically mention that third parties outside the CIA would be granted protection. In this case, I would believe that applying the Court’s ruling in the case of Caparo plc.

V Dickman (1990) would be realistic. The case involved Dickman – an auditor, who, by negligence, stated a company’s profitability to be better than it was in reality. Caparo – a third party, relying on the stated profitability of the company, after