Gregory's Negligence Case Brief
Question A:
Likelihood of Kimberly’s claim being successful:
With the central issue in Kimberly’s circumstance of being physically and mentally impaired due to the shutters of the Bed & Breakfast house flying off and as a result, hitting the plaintiff (Kimberly), there is a high possibility that Kimberly’s claim will succeed. As a result of Elle being aware that months after the shutters were installed, she noticed splinters in the wood and damage in some of the shutters but took no precautionary measures to ensure that the risk of harm was eliminated, Kimberly’s claim of negligence on behalf of Elle is likely to be successful. With revelation to Elle’s failure to eliminate the risk of harm, Elle’s lack of action to take reasonable care has …show more content…
As the defendant, Elle should have taken precautions against “not insignificant risks that a reasonable person would take precautions to avoid”. 454-1
Elle’s knowledge of the risk of the splintered wood and damaged shutters falls under the category of reasonable foreseeability, and thus, Elle may be hold liable as Section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) provides that “(1) A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless: (a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known.” 459-1 In addition to this, Section 2 of 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) further reasons that to determine whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court must consider (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care was not taken”. As the risk of harm had Elle taken precautions to repair/replace the shutters, would have been minimal, Kimberly’s claim of negligence furthers Elle’s probability of being held liable for negligence and thus, the victory of Kimberly’s claim against Elle further
Likelihood of Kimberly’s claim being successful:
With the central issue in Kimberly’s circumstance of being physically and mentally impaired due to the shutters of the Bed & Breakfast house flying off and as a result, hitting the plaintiff (Kimberly), there is a high possibility that Kimberly’s claim will succeed. As a result of Elle being aware that months after the shutters were installed, she noticed splinters in the wood and damage in some of the shutters but took no precautionary measures to ensure that the risk of harm was eliminated, Kimberly’s claim of negligence on behalf of Elle is likely to be successful. With revelation to Elle’s failure to eliminate the risk of harm, Elle’s lack of action to take reasonable care has …show more content…
As the defendant, Elle should have taken precautions against “not insignificant risks that a reasonable person would take precautions to avoid”. 454-1
Elle’s knowledge of the risk of the splintered wood and damaged shutters falls under the category of reasonable foreseeability, and thus, Elle may be hold liable as Section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) provides that “(1) A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless: (a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known.” 459-1 In addition to this, Section 2 of 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) further reasons that to determine whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court must consider (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care was not taken”. As the risk of harm had Elle taken precautions to repair/replace the shutters, would have been minimal, Kimberly’s claim of negligence furthers Elle’s probability of being held liable for negligence and thus, the victory of Kimberly’s claim against Elle further