Negligence: The Duty Of Care
Negligence: The duty of care
Introduction
The tort of negligence has a role in providing compensation for those who have suffered through the actions of another. A negligent act can be summarised as failing to do something that should be done or doing something that should be carried out in another manner or not at all.
When determining if an act is negligent, a number of basic principles are called upon in order to establish whether a duty of care is owed and if so, by whom.
Reasonable Man
In determining the standard of care between two parties, the defendants actions, or lack thereof, are related the question of “what would a reasonable man have done in all the circumstances of this case?” A negligent person would be seen to have acted …show more content…
Ms. McDonald was a customer at the defendant’s restaurant who was injured while visiting for dinner one evening. There was an area of the restaurant at a higher level to the front section and so customers were required to go up three steps to this level while dining. To the side of the steps was a screen separating the steps from a dining area, and to the other side was a low wall which separated the steps from a ramp. The plaintiff suffered an injury to her ankle as a result of tripping whilst going down the three steps and being unable to catch herself as there was no handrail in place. It was the plaintiffs claim that the restaurant owners had been negligent in not providing a handrail to the steps, and had they done so she would have been able to catch herself and prevent the injury from occurring. The first and second named defendants argued that at the time the restaurant was designed and built (2002-2003), the building regulations did not require a handrail as there were only three risers. Mr. Justice O’ Neill judged that “it must have been readily foreseeable to the first and second named defendants, as experienced restaurateurs, that the absence of a handrail on these steps would result in someone having a bad fall resulting in serious injury”. Their actions were deemed to be negligent because the omission of the handrail was deemed to be not in line with the procedure a practical, prudent man would have undertaken given the knowledge and expertise of the restaurant and customer service
Introduction
The tort of negligence has a role in providing compensation for those who have suffered through the actions of another. A negligent act can be summarised as failing to do something that should be done or doing something that should be carried out in another manner or not at all.
When determining if an act is negligent, a number of basic principles are called upon in order to establish whether a duty of care is owed and if so, by whom.
Reasonable Man
In determining the standard of care between two parties, the defendants actions, or lack thereof, are related the question of “what would a reasonable man have done in all the circumstances of this case?” A negligent person would be seen to have acted …show more content…
Ms. McDonald was a customer at the defendant’s restaurant who was injured while visiting for dinner one evening. There was an area of the restaurant at a higher level to the front section and so customers were required to go up three steps to this level while dining. To the side of the steps was a screen separating the steps from a dining area, and to the other side was a low wall which separated the steps from a ramp. The plaintiff suffered an injury to her ankle as a result of tripping whilst going down the three steps and being unable to catch herself as there was no handrail in place. It was the plaintiffs claim that the restaurant owners had been negligent in not providing a handrail to the steps, and had they done so she would have been able to catch herself and prevent the injury from occurring. The first and second named defendants argued that at the time the restaurant was designed and built (2002-2003), the building regulations did not require a handrail as there were only three risers. Mr. Justice O’ Neill judged that “it must have been readily foreseeable to the first and second named defendants, as experienced restaurateurs, that the absence of a handrail on these steps would result in someone having a bad fall resulting in serious injury”. Their actions were deemed to be negligent because the omission of the handrail was deemed to be not in line with the procedure a practical, prudent man would have undertaken given the knowledge and expertise of the restaurant and customer service