Breached Because Of Not Taking Reasonable â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Breached Because Of Not Taking Reasonable? Answer: Introducation The concept of negligence has become prominent in the legal world since the case of Donoghue v Stevenson[1]. In this case the court held that even where there is not relationship between two person which could make them have a legal claim against each other such as a contractual relationship, they can make a claim if there is a duty of care owed by a person to another. The concept which gave rise to the duty of care is known as the neighbor principle which had been brought to the legal area through the case of Donogue v Stevenson. The court in this case ruled that like a good neighbor has a duty of care to protect his neighbor form any adverse action caused by him which could have an effect on the neighbor, in the same way people owe a duty of care to others if their actions can cause injury to the other person foreseeably. In the case of Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant[2] it was ruled by the court that if a reasonable person thinks that his action can cause harm to another person through his action the defendant is said to have a duty of care towards the plaintiff. Breach of the duty of care The breach of duty of care is also one of the most essential elements to establish that whether a negligence claim can be established or not. Even if a person owes a duty of care and harm has been caused to the other person a negligent action cannot be established if the duty of care was not violated by the plaintiff. The most common law test for the violation of the duty of care is the objective test which had been established by the landmark case of Vaughan v Menlove[3] in this case it was provide by the judges that in case of a negligent claim a reasonable person has to be placed in the place of the defendant and then it has to be analyzed that the reasonable person would have been more careful towards his actions or not. If it is found that the reasonable person would have been extra careful as compared to the defendant the duty of care is said to be violated by the defendant. In the case of Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor[4] it had been ruled b the court that a person cannot be held negligent in relation to the violation of the duty of care unless the risk which was associated with the situation was foreseeable which means that it was a risk which a person would have knowledge about or would likely to have known about the existence of such risk. In addition the person cannot be held to have violated the duty of care unless it is established that there was a significant harm involved in the case. In addition the case also cited the principle used by the Vaughan case in relation to a reasonable person taking extra precaution. These provisions have also been discussed in the civil liabilities Acts of the respective states. In the case of D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane[5] it was provided by the court that whether a reasonable person would have been subjected to taking enhanced care in relation to a situation has to be analyzed in the light of likelihood of the harm being caused in case the additional care has not been taken. The seriousness which is likely to be involved in the harm also has to be analyzed in order to determine the actions of a reasonable person. The social utility of the risk and the burden of proof in relation to taking extra precautions are also taken to identify the actions of a reasonable person. Causation As per the case of Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital[6] which provided the but for test in order to determine causation if the harm have been avoided if the plaintiff was not negligent than the causation is said to be established. Application In the given situation as per the neighbor principle discussed above there is a duty of care owed by the mall to the workers and the patrons. This is because the mall can reasonably foresee that others associated with the mall can be harmed because of any negligence of the mall. Breach of the duty of care In order to determine whether the duty of care has been violated the above discussed principles have to be applied to the facts of the case. Although the door had the signs of being fire doors the signs were not visible to a person as Greg has kept the door open using a wedge. A reasonable person would have not done so given the probability of fire and the likely significance of the harm. In addition the security person employed by the mall who works as its agent also did not take any action knowing that the doors were not supposed to be kept open. As a security personal he would have realized the risk of the harm and the likelihood and the significance of the harm which can be caused due to fire. It was probable that as there is a food court on the floor where fire is used for cooking the probability of fire being cased is high. In addition after being informed about the situation via a letter posted by Sally the mall authority did not take any action which a reasonable person would have taken to avoid the harm. Thus it can be said that the duty has been breached. The harm as per the but for test would not have been caused to Ronald if proper care would have been taken and the doors would have been kept closed by the mall authorities. Thus the element of factual causation is also present. Conclusion Therefore it can be concluded that as the Mall had a duty of care towards Ronald, which have been breached because of not taking reasonable care in the given circumstances and which further was the cause of the injury suffered by Ronald, a claim can be made by Ronald against the Mall for negligence. References Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v. Grant 50 C. L. R. 387 Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 D'Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] QSC 103 Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor [2014] NSWCA 394 of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 522 Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467