1 |P a g eBusiness LawOpen Book Final Exam Questions + Answers
Question 1Jim owns a bar in Bangsar. On a busy night Charles comes in with some friends for a few drinks. After three pintsCharles drops his pint on the floor. Jim sends one of the barmen, Brendan, to wipe it up. It is a busy night, so Brendanonly wipes up some of the beer and the floor remains quite wet. After several more pints, whilst going to the bar to buyanother round, Charles slips on the wet floor and breaks his arm. Advise Charles whether he has a valid legal claim insuing Jim and whether there are any defences available to Jim by referring to relevant cases.Negligenceis failing to use reasonable care by not doing something which a reasonable man would do or doing somethingwhich reasonable man would notdo1. Duty of care.Duty of care is a responsibility of an individual to not harm others through carelessness. Firstly, duty of care must be reasonablyforeseeable the likelihood of the damage/injury. In this scenario, the injury on Charles, the plaintiff, can be reasonably foreseenby defendant, Jim which the Jim could have foreseen the accident/injury and prevent it if he had ensure Brendan did wiped thefloor and ensured the floor is not remain in a condition of quite wet despite it is a busy night.A proximate relationship between the parties is required, however it is not necessarily physical proximity as long as it raises to arelationship where one party can reasonably foresee that his act can cause damage/injury to the other. Applying to the case,Charles is one of the guests of the bar, a close relationship exists between them as Jim and Brendan’s act will directly affect tothe other.Based on vicarious liability, employer liable for employee’s negligence during the course of employment.Rose v Plentycaseconcludes that even it is a prohibited act, employer has to take responsibility for employee’s negligence if it is done in thecourse of his employment for employer's business.2. Breach of duty.To establish a breach of duty on the part of defendant it must be shown that defendant failed to meet the standard of care. Thefactors to be considered are:Preventativesteps to be taken to reduce potential harm (Latimer v AEC)Compare with the case, if plaintiff injure, he will not liable in negligence as he could not fully eliminate the risk but he hastaken every preventative and reasonable step in the circumstances. In this scenario, Jim failed to show his preventive andreasonable steps like ensuring the floor is not remain quite wet and putting a warning signs as a reasonable man would do toreduce the potential accident/injury.In conclusion, there was a breach of duty owed by Jim.3.A causal connection between the act and the damage.