Torrt Of Negligence In Tort

1664 Words7 Pages
Tort Carelessness is one of the factors that lead to a breach of a contract. However, there are instances where carelessness has caused harm when there is no contract at all, and there is nothing for one party to sue another. In situations like these, the tort of negligence applies, as it is concerned with careless conduct which causes damage. Under the law, tort is a civil wrong which consist of a breach of duty which is imposed by law other than an agreement provided in a contract. Significantly, liability is fault based, and it is the responsibility of the claimant to prove that the defendant is blameworthy for the damage. However, there are certain requirements before a claimant becomes successful in his claim of negligence. In line with…show more content…
Under the first element, the restaurant owner has an endless duty of observing hard work ethic (Mealey 2016). One of the many characteristics of a good work ethic is dedication. When workers are dedicated to their jobs, they will do anything to ensure that they perform well (Schreiner 2017). Although it would be unfair to say that the restaurant owner is not totally dedicated just because he became negligent in opening the bottle of champagne, he should have been very cautious considering the fact that there are instances that the cork becomes uncontrollable, thus, causing damage to another person’s person or property. As enunciated in the case of Caparo Industires pls vs. Dickman and others, there is a need to consider if it is fair and justifiable to impost a duty of care in all the circumstances. In this case, it would be fair and justifiable to impost a duty of care is such a circumstance because if not, damages caused by uncontrolled corks would become a leeway in prosecuting those who committed an actionable wrong. Besides, the restaurant owner owed Simon a duty of care. As a customer of the restaurant, it was reasonably foreseeable that he would be affected the owner's negligence. Under the second element, the restaurant owner failed to exercise reasonable cause in fulfilling his duty. The facts of the case highly favors Simon, and it is up to the owner now to…show more content…
As such, it is only justifiable to make laws and regulations that would address torts and damages, so as to justly compensate those who have suffered from injuries and losses and pain. Based on the given discussion, it is clear that a plaintiff can only recover compensation if he is able to establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care; the defendant breached that duty; and that there was consequential damage. These elements are actually present in the case of Simon. As to the first element, the restaurant owner owed Simon a duty of care. As a customer of the restaurant, it was reasonably foreseeable that Simon would be affected with the owner's negligence. Further, it is the duty of the owner to ensure that he is able to observe ordinary care for his customers to be free from hazards and risk of injury. As to the second element, the facts of the case highly favor Simon. Based on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it is now the responsibility of the restaurant owner to prove that he exercised diligence in performing his duty. Lastly, the “but-for” causation presupposes that if it were not of the owner's removing of the cork, Simon would have not suffered any damages. Since these elements are present, Simon can fairly and justifiably seek for damages. Under tort laws, monetary payment is one way of compensating plaintiffs, or in the case of Simon, it is one way of compensating him for for his

    More about Torrt Of Negligence In Tort

      Open Document