Duty of Care

As per the case study, Charlene who is the yoga instructor is defendant and Skye who is student, is plaintiff. When the yoga session is running, Skye skidded her left foot to the table, toppling the urn and steamer onto her body. Therefore, hot tea, towels and appliances scolded her skin and now she want to sue the defendant Charlene and claim the remedies. According the scenario of the case, Charlene change the yoga class schedule for own requirement and 45 numbered students attain the class and therefore the lack of space arise. The plaintiff who has found small space near the table where the defendant has keeps the hot tea and towels. She slipped and burned her skin. Here, the defendant owned a duty of care towards her students. Charlene breach the duty of care towards Skye.Negligence however defines when they have been taken the legal actions for the negligence and it were also found that the plaintiff got injured due to the defendant’s negligent. When there is negligence establishes they must satisfy the conducts of negligence’s which duty of care, breach the duty of care, the causation for the negligence and the loss of remoteness.

Issue

The issue is whether Charlene is liable for the carelessness which affects Skye or not.  

Law

According the case study, it is a simple case of negligence where due to negligence Skye who is one of the students got injured. The duties of care and breach of the duties statutes are applied in this case as per one of the famous case, Donoghue vs. Stevenson. Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] 246 CLR 182 is another famous case where careless of the defendant because the injuries principals are stated.

Application 

Negligence is the part of tort law where the person is failing to provide the proper reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to other person. When plaintiff sue defendant for negligence, he or she must satisfy the facts of negligence.

Those are:

• There must be a circumstance of duty of care from the defendant towards the plaintiff.
• When plaintiff sues the defendant, she must prove the negligence behavior of the defendant where he or she failed to provide the proper duty of care and cause the damages.
• For the negligence, the plaintiff has suffered any damages or injury for the negligence by the defendant where the damage is caused.
• The plaintiff must prove the facts that the damage was caused for breach the duty of care by the defendant for the suffering the loss.

The defendant knows that the floor of the hall is slippery. She might have provided rubber shocks to everybody and asked to wear it but not mentioned the purposes to use it at the time of yoga. The plaintiff decides not to wear the shocks because it is mismatching to her dress and slipped on the floor. It is the duty of the defendant to aware her students to wear the shocks while they are performing the yoga. She failed to do her duty. Now the plaintiff can ask for the damage because she has damage. It is a case of negligence where duty of care, breach of the duty, damages and remedies law can be applied.

Breach of Duty of Care

Conclusion 

Whereas, when defendant mentioned ever student to wear the shocks while they performing the yoga, the plaintiff must follow the proper instruction. Here, the defendant can defense himself by using the law of contributory negligence as per the scenario of the case.

Issue 

The issue is whether Charlene breaches the duty of care to Skye or not.

Law

According to the case study, it can be stated that it is breach of duty of care. The duty was breached when it can be stated that the service provider or the person who owns the duty of care failed to provide the absolute care towards another party the duty is breached. In the case of Donogue vs. Stevenson case, the court had find the breach of duties towards the client ir the customer. In this case, Charlene owns a duty to her student Skye and in the yoga class when she slipped in the floor and got the injury and it is stated that Charlene breach the duty of care to Skye. The Civil Liability Act gives the provision in the tort law where the person who injured by another negligence can take the precaution against the damage.

Application 

As per the famous case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] it is duty of the service provider that they must case of their duties when they providing the services to the customers. They have duty to care at the time of their employment. Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999) is another famous case where the neighbor test are defines. Therefore as per the case study, Trevor failed to do his duties. He must not delay the returns for his own purposes. Due to dark, Anna failed to see the road and fall down the hillside. She injured her knees.

Apart from that, Charlene has knowledge and experience about her yoga class.  She already knows about the floor therefore she provides everybody large number of cheap imported socks with rippled rubber soles which helps the students not slipped on the smooth floor. However she already knows about the floor, Skye slipped in the floor. She breaches her duty of care.

Therefore it can be stated that in the Donogue vs. Stevenson case the negligence of breach of duty of the care has satisfy all the facts. In the Blake v Galloway [2004] and Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) case, the court also finds the breaches by the defendant towards the plaintiff.

Damage

Conclusion 

Charlene has breached the duty of care towards Skye while she was providing her services in her yoga class.

Issue 

The issue is whether Plaintiff (Skye) suffered damage due to the negligence from the defendant (Charlene) or it could have happened in any other way.

Law 

In the cases of Revill v Newbery [1996] and Nettleship v Weston [1971] the contributory negligence was establish successfully. The Pitts v Hunt [1990] is another case where the plaintiff was liable for 100% harm towards to him. Here, the liability arises when the wrongdoer is adjusted based on the percentage of contributory negligence made by the plaintiff. It is also important that when plaintiff is liable for 30% of damage towards to him then the defendant have to pay the rest 70% of compensation for the damages that has been allocated to the plaintiff.

Causation 

When the plaintiff needs to prove the probability of the damages then he or she must make the balance of the probability of the breach of duty of care of the defendant. The defendant has no need to give any explanation of the harm rather the claimant must give the justification for the damage.

In the case f Chaplin vs. Hicks (1911) v2KB 786 was found that the loss of chances for the negligence. Therefore the claimant can demand for the recovery. Bank v Cohen Arnold & Co [1996] 1 PNLR 17, and Stovold v Barlows [1996] 1 PNLR 91 are another case where the ‘but for test has been applied by the court.’

Loss is not remote

Remoteness of damages only describes those parts where the potential f liabilities apply as per the situation of the plaintiff. The remoteness always describe by the negligence by the defendant. Therefore the harm that was caused by the defendant and the quantity of the damages are measured in the remoteness of the damage. The foresee ability of the damages by the defendant always liable for the act. In the case, Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 249 IH the application of force ability was illustrated by the court.  

Application 

Charlene cancels one of the yoga classes and for replacement of that class she offered for an extra class to the students. As hall room has lack of space, the room was crowded. Skye arrived late in the yoga class because she had to attain a party and drink three glass of wine. When she arrived the hall room, she found small place beside the table for her and decide not to wear the socks as per the instruction of the defendant therefore she slipped and burned her skin with hot tea and hot towel. Here as per the situation, though the defendant breach her duty of care because it is her duty to look after to every student while they are performing yoga.

Causation

Conclusion 

According to the case study, it can be concluded that the remoteness of the damages where Skye has suffered the damages for the negligence of Charlene.

Issue 

Did Skye Contribute to her own injury?

Rules 

In the cases of Revill v Newbery [1996] and Nettleship v Weston [1971] the contributory negligence was establish successfully. The Pitts v Hunt [1990] is another case where the plaintiff was liable for 100% harm towards to him. Here, the liability arises when the wrongdoer is adjusted based on the percentage of contributory negligence made by the plaintiff. It is also important that when plaintiff is liable for 30% of damage towards to him then the defendant have to pay the rest 70% of compensation for the damages that has been allocated to the plaintiff (Cusimano and Roberts 2016).

Application 

The plaintiff who is also liable for her own injury because when the defendant instructs everyone to wear the shocks, she must listen to her. She ignored the rules and slip due to the slippery floor. As per the law of negligence, the plaintiff also liable for her injuries in yoga class. Here, the defendant can use the defense of contributory negligence where it is include that when the plaintiff and the defendant both are liable for the negligence and the damages can be negotiate.

Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd is a example of breach the duties of care where the court stated that The plaintiff can claim for General damages, Special damages where the plaintiff must precisely demonstrate the damage and the damage must be calculated.  Revill v Newbery [1996] and Nettleship v Weston [1971] are the famous cases where the statues of contributory negligence applied (Cusimano and Roberts 2016).

Conclusion 

There was contributory negligent from Skye as she was negligent during the yoga session.

Here the issue can be arise wether Charlene is liable for the whole of damages  of Skye?

Law 

The remedies only claim when it is found that the damages is actually happen and the measure of the remedies also determine as per the damage. When the damage is determined, then it is the duty of the defendant that he or she will give the remedies to the plaintiff. The defendant also defenses her if she thinks that she is not liable for all the damages.

Application 

As per the case study, it is found that the defendant had breach her duty of care to her student. When she has knowledge that the hall room space was not enough for 45 students for yoga, she arranges the class. She provide hot herbal tea and hot towel during the yoga session therefore when she keep those things in the table she might know it will may cause of any damage if those fall into somebody’s skin.  When she arranges the class, she also need to look after the students that they are having proper space for yoga.

However she fails to do that and in this case the plaintiff equally liable for the negligence because when the yoga instructor give instruction to wear the shocks, she does not follow the instruction. Therefore, for the negligence she is equally liable. When she comes to the class, she was drunk also. However, as per the scenario, she slips because of not wearing the socks. She is also liable for her injury.

Conclusion 

In the contributory negligence both party are liable for the damages. They can negotiate the amount of damages. The damage compensation is always claimed through monitory. Those are the only remedies in the damages of the negligence as per the Tort Law.

Conclusion 

As per the case study, it can be concluded that the negligence was occurred for both the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant has satisfied all the terms of negligence therefore he is liable for the damage whereas, the plaintiff is also liable for contributory negligence in this case. Therefore, the remedies for the negligence would provide as per the principals of the contributory negligence. The both parties can negotiate the amount and compensate the damages.

Reference 

(UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 3880

Abraham, K., 2017. The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic.

Blake v Galloway [2004] CAs

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) Exch

Cusimano, G.S. and Roberts, M.L., 2016. Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk. Alabama Tort Law, 1.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1).

Fordham, M., 2013. Legislation and Case Notes: Contributory Negligence and the Disabled Claimant.

Goudkamp, J. and Nolan, D., 2016. Contributory Negligence in Practice.

Greenfield, S., 2016. Legal Cultures and the Regulation of Coaching Practice: Different Jurisdictions, Different Approaches?. Staps, (4), pp.87-96.

Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016. Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses (Vol. 1). California Torts.

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 WLR  

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd[1999] HCA 36)

 Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239

Verbruggen, P., Wolters, P., Hildebrandt, M., Sieburgh, C. and Jansen, C., 2016. Towards Harmonised Duties of Care and Diligence in Cybersecurity