Priscilla V. Vogue Beauty Salon Summary
| Negligent Act | Priscilla V Vogue Beauty Salon | | | 11/1/2010 |
Nelson Tanwin [The Negligent act refers to negligent category A for the case Priscilla Vs Vogue beauty Salon, the document excludes the descriptions for Defense.] |
Issue
The legal issue in this case relates to the law of negligence. Specifically, whether Defendant, Vogue Beauty Salon was negligent by applying fragranced cream to the skin of Plaintiff, Priscilla.
[Note: The Employee of Vogue Beauty Salon, Veronica was vicariously liable for the damages of her actions.]
Relevant Law and Application
1 Did the Defendant owe the Plaintiff a duty of care?
As per Donogue V Stevenson, the law states that the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care if the negligent act causes physical or psychological injury to person or damage to property. It therefore must fulfill these two tests. …show more content…
1.1 Was the risk reasonably foreseeable?
The risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, since Plaintiff specifically asked the employee of the Defendant not to apply fragranced cream to Plaintiff’s skin, due to a skin condition that is suffered by Plaintiff that occurs in the case of one in sixty women. In a reasonable point of view, if a third party was asked not to apply fragranced cream to the skin of someone who suffers from a skin condition, the third party would follow as requested and applied a non- fragranced cream to the skin of the person with a skin condition.
1.2 Was there a relationship of proximity between Defendant and Plaintiff? In this case, the Defendant being the party providing the service and the Plaintiff being the party customer receiving the service shows the close relationship of proximity between defendant and
plaintiff.
1.3 Sub conclusion
Therefore, the defendant Vogue Beauty Salon owed the plaintiff Priscilla a duty of care.
2 Did the Defendant breach the standard of care?
As per Romeo V Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, the law states that the Defendant breached the standard of care if he or she does not take reasonable care. Thus, it must fulfill the test below.
2.1 As per, Wyong Shire Council V Shirt What would a reasonable person do in the circumstances? With the four factors stated by law consider what is reasonable.
* Seriousness of Injury: The injury could cause the Plaintiff to have permanent burn marks on the skin. Seeing that Plaintiff, Priscilla was a successful young photographic model, the permanent burns could end her career as a photographic model and eliminate all the income Plaintiff receives from the jobs thereby causing a loss of enjoyment of life. Therefore the injury could escalate to pretty serious. * Likelihood of Injury: The Plaintiff would have felt that the injury would not have happened since, the employee was informed of the skin condition suffered by the plaintiff, and therefore the likelihood of the injury is very low. * The difficulty of removing or eliminating the risk of injury: The employee decided to ignore the request of the Plaintiff which would have eliminated the risk of injury and after knowing that the cream applied was fragranced, the employee did nothing to remove the cream although it was as simple as wiping the fragranced cream off the skin of the Plaintiff, and therefore it was very easy to remove or eliminate the risk of injury. * Social utility of Defendant’s conduct or conflicting responsibilities: The defendant had no social utility or conflicting responsibility.
2.2 Sub conclusion
Therefore the Defendant Vogue Beauty Salon breached the standard of care.
3 What are the resulting damages caused by the Defendant and are the damages too remote?
3.1 The types of damages suffered and does the common law recognize these damages?
Due to this occurrence, Plaintiff suffered severe facial burns and also burns to the leg. As a result, Plaintiff had to spend $30,000 for cosmetic surgery to repair the damages done by the cream, lost over $100,000 in potential earning over six months due to being unable to work caused used for recovery time for the burns, the diminishing quality of lifestyle and aspirations to be a top model and therapy with Dr. Eyelash, at $100 per session twice a week having suffered from emotional stress due to this occurrence.
3.2 As per March V Stramare, the law stated that but for the negligent act or omission of the defendant, the Plaintiff would not have suffered the injuries? Was the Defendant’s negligence a continuing cause?
But for employee being preoccupied by work and ignoring the request of the Plaintiff to apply fragrance free cream only, Plaintiff would not have suffered the severe facial burns and leg burns would not have to suffer the damages explained above.
3.3As per Overseas Tankship V The Miller Steamship, the law states wether or not the damages being claimed were reasonably foreseeable?
The damages being claimed were reasonably foreseeable, seeing that Plaintiff needed hospitalized expenses to remove the skin burns, the potential earnings were also reasonably foreseeable seeing that Plaintiff was a top young photographic models and the emotional stressed suffered was also reasonably foreseeable since the occurrences might be hard to take for an aspiring model.
3.4 Sub conclusion
Therefore the Defendant Vogue Beauty Salon can be held liable for the damages and the damages claimed was not too remote.
4 Conclusion
Plaintiff, Priscilla would be successful in suing Defendant, Vogue Beauty Salon for negligent act and successful in claiming most of the damages to all the damages depending on the defense of the Defendant and the decision of the jury.
Nelson Tanwin [The Negligent act refers to negligent category A for the case Priscilla Vs Vogue beauty Salon, the document excludes the descriptions for Defense.] |
Issue
The legal issue in this case relates to the law of negligence. Specifically, whether Defendant, Vogue Beauty Salon was negligent by applying fragranced cream to the skin of Plaintiff, Priscilla.
[Note: The Employee of Vogue Beauty Salon, Veronica was vicariously liable for the damages of her actions.]
Relevant Law and Application
1 Did the Defendant owe the Plaintiff a duty of care?
As per Donogue V Stevenson, the law states that the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care if the negligent act causes physical or psychological injury to person or damage to property. It therefore must fulfill these two tests. …show more content…
1.1 Was the risk reasonably foreseeable?
The risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, since Plaintiff specifically asked the employee of the Defendant not to apply fragranced cream to Plaintiff’s skin, due to a skin condition that is suffered by Plaintiff that occurs in the case of one in sixty women. In a reasonable point of view, if a third party was asked not to apply fragranced cream to the skin of someone who suffers from a skin condition, the third party would follow as requested and applied a non- fragranced cream to the skin of the person with a skin condition.
1.2 Was there a relationship of proximity between Defendant and Plaintiff? In this case, the Defendant being the party providing the service and the Plaintiff being the party customer receiving the service shows the close relationship of proximity between defendant and
plaintiff.
1.3 Sub conclusion
Therefore, the defendant Vogue Beauty Salon owed the plaintiff Priscilla a duty of care.
2 Did the Defendant breach the standard of care?
As per Romeo V Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, the law states that the Defendant breached the standard of care if he or she does not take reasonable care. Thus, it must fulfill the test below.
2.1 As per, Wyong Shire Council V Shirt What would a reasonable person do in the circumstances? With the four factors stated by law consider what is reasonable.
* Seriousness of Injury: The injury could cause the Plaintiff to have permanent burn marks on the skin. Seeing that Plaintiff, Priscilla was a successful young photographic model, the permanent burns could end her career as a photographic model and eliminate all the income Plaintiff receives from the jobs thereby causing a loss of enjoyment of life. Therefore the injury could escalate to pretty serious. * Likelihood of Injury: The Plaintiff would have felt that the injury would not have happened since, the employee was informed of the skin condition suffered by the plaintiff, and therefore the likelihood of the injury is very low. * The difficulty of removing or eliminating the risk of injury: The employee decided to ignore the request of the Plaintiff which would have eliminated the risk of injury and after knowing that the cream applied was fragranced, the employee did nothing to remove the cream although it was as simple as wiping the fragranced cream off the skin of the Plaintiff, and therefore it was very easy to remove or eliminate the risk of injury. * Social utility of Defendant’s conduct or conflicting responsibilities: The defendant had no social utility or conflicting responsibility.
2.2 Sub conclusion
Therefore the Defendant Vogue Beauty Salon breached the standard of care.
3 What are the resulting damages caused by the Defendant and are the damages too remote?
3.1 The types of damages suffered and does the common law recognize these damages?
Due to this occurrence, Plaintiff suffered severe facial burns and also burns to the leg. As a result, Plaintiff had to spend $30,000 for cosmetic surgery to repair the damages done by the cream, lost over $100,000 in potential earning over six months due to being unable to work caused used for recovery time for the burns, the diminishing quality of lifestyle and aspirations to be a top model and therapy with Dr. Eyelash, at $100 per session twice a week having suffered from emotional stress due to this occurrence.
3.2 As per March V Stramare, the law stated that but for the negligent act or omission of the defendant, the Plaintiff would not have suffered the injuries? Was the Defendant’s negligence a continuing cause?
But for employee being preoccupied by work and ignoring the request of the Plaintiff to apply fragrance free cream only, Plaintiff would not have suffered the severe facial burns and leg burns would not have to suffer the damages explained above.
3.3As per Overseas Tankship V The Miller Steamship, the law states wether or not the damages being claimed were reasonably foreseeable?
The damages being claimed were reasonably foreseeable, seeing that Plaintiff needed hospitalized expenses to remove the skin burns, the potential earnings were also reasonably foreseeable seeing that Plaintiff was a top young photographic models and the emotional stressed suffered was also reasonably foreseeable since the occurrences might be hard to take for an aspiring model.
3.4 Sub conclusion
Therefore the Defendant Vogue Beauty Salon can be held liable for the damages and the damages claimed was not too remote.
4 Conclusion
Plaintiff, Priscilla would be successful in suing Defendant, Vogue Beauty Salon for negligent act and successful in claiming most of the damages to all the damages depending on the defense of the Defendant and the decision of the jury.