Economic Loss and the Prerequisites of Negligence - Case Study Example

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Name Date A Problem Solving Essay on the Law of Negligence Facts of the Case Josh slipped and fell while on his shopping duty. However, the manager apologizes and states that the supermarket has a policy where staff members are required to check floors each and every hour and more frequently during busy periods. The manager further informs Josh that the last time the floors were checked was just 15 minutes before the accident. Consequences of the Accident As a result of the fall, Josh will not be able to participate in his sport; butterfly race where there is a chance he could have won a gold medal at 400m race and thus, he is not going to participate in Commonwealth Games. Facts behind the filing for Tort of Negligence The tort of negligence is made up of three most straightforward and necessary components and thus, in order to succeed in an action, the plaintiff, for this case being Josh must be able to postulate that the following; First, that there was a duty which was owed to him by the accused, in this case the supermarket management (Benson 87-89). Second, the plaintiff should be able to indicate that the duty of care, as postulated above, was in fact breached in the course of relating with accused activities. Third, the accuser should be able to show that as a result of the breach of duty, there was a substantial level of damage that he or she suffered (Benson 89). Thus, for the possibility of duty of care, it should be proved that the accused activities or omissions within these activities are able to determine their respective obligations to the people for whom they owe the duty (Benson 90-112). On the contrary, it is determined that the accused cannot have the duty of care to the plaintiff in the event that it is determined he or she could not reasonably foresee that as a result of his carelessness, the accuser might be injured. In relation to the case, the second scenario is most evident. It should be important to understand that because Josh was not careful with his footsteps, it lead to his falling. As a matter of fact, he ran into a trolley and not the other way round. Subsequently, the manager postulates that the firm’s policy requires that the floors be checked at least each and every of operations and more frequent in the event that there are more customers for that matter. From the case, it would not be easier to determine whether the supermarket was busy enough in order to overrule the 1 hour-check policy however, if the floor was checked 15 minutes before the fall then, it can be deteremined that the accuser was not positioned fairly to prevent the accident from happening due to the fact that he could not reasonable foresee the fall. In regards to the breach of the duty of care, it can only be established whenever the defendant caused any form of injury to the plaintiff that could have been avoided in the event that the defendant applied reasonable care in their relations with the accuser (Benson 122-125). This is not an easier matter to decide upon and can only be ruled by judges in using the facts of the case put before them. In relation to the case at hand, it is not without doubt that the supermarket had a duty of care to protect the plaintiff from any possible injury or loss. However, the issue is much more complicated given that the manager informs Josh that the supermarket policy in relation to cleaning and checking the floor had been adhered to until the fall happened. And thus, it would have been very challenging for the staff members to establish when the fall could have occurred in order to prevent it in advance. As stipulated earlier, this is a scenario that should be put before a panel of experts for intensive analysis and judgment. However, in my opinion, I do not think that the supermarket was placed in fair position to prevent the injury. As a matter of fact due to Josh un-carelessness, he slipped into both the trolley and the customer behind him. It is not substantial to postulate that supermarket’s management should have made policies limiting customers from assuming closer vicinities while shopping to avoid such accidents since this would contradict their very objective of existence; maximizing wealth and profits. The accident was inevitable and there was no possible way that could have been used to prevent its occurrence. Consequently, it is postulated that for a successful filing for the tort of negligence, the plaintiff should prove that as a result of the defendant’s not exercising unreasonable care as owed to the plaintiffs by law, plaintiffs was able to suffer subsequent injuries or loss (Benson 89). This is attributed to the fact that the actions of negligence are not actionable within the courts per se. For this case, Josh has suffered both damages. First, the fell resulted to a deeper cut on his arm. This, in itself, is a possible injury to his body parts. Second, as a result of the cut made on his arms, he could participate in the Butterfly race where there were higher possibilities of winning gold medals at the 400m race that could have, in turn, catapulted his career given that he would have participated in the commonwealth games. For this type of case, however, they are overruled by a general rule that the accuser who alleges must prove it firsthand. On the contrary, the accuser might be relieved of the aforementioned responsibility, proving that there was negligence on the part of the defendant, in cases where the maxim: “the thing speaks for itself” applies (Benson 129-130). For such scenarios, the accused is held responsible for the breach of duty of care and thus, they are expected to refute the allegations in the court in order to escape possible liability for damages caused. In my opinion, this case scenario can thus be covered by the facts laid down for contributory negligence. For this form negligence, both the accuser and the accused must have contributed to the breaching of the duty of care (Benson 130-131). Thus, the likely scenario would be for these two individuals to share the liability resulting from the breach in the proportion that well-suits each of them. It should be understood that the common law does not offer any form of damages for the accuser in the case of accidents. However, their respective rights to recover are protected under the Law Reform Act. The Law Reform Act establishes that the accuser should not be dismissed merely because they were partly involved in the breach of the duty of care, but that the court of law should determine the damages for which he was involved so that the remainder is covered by the accused. For Josh case, this act fairly covers his plight. It must be noted that both of the individuals, that is Josh and the supermarket were expected to exercise reasonable duty of care. Given the fact that Josh was not careful when shopping hence resulting to him falling and cutting his arm so bad and also, that the supermarket failed to discern whether the day was busy and thus, conduct thorough and frequent checks, it resulted to a breach of duty of care for both of these individuals. In consequence, they were involved in the breach of the duty of law. The court of law should therefore decide fairly so that neither of the party is unfairly treated. This means that as much as Josh would be entitled to some damages, they should not surpass the amount for which he was supposed to exercise care. This, in itself is meant to protect the supermarket from possible maximum pay of damages for activities that they could not have prevented after in the case that they were to exercise reasonable care. Works Cited Benson, Peter. "Economic loss and the prerequisites of negligence." Franklin Business & Law Journal 2013.1 (2013): 80-132. Business Source Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2014. Read More