Negligence Assignment

Business Law #1

Case# 2 Ch. 3

The issue in this case is if the tavern owner is somewhat responsible for Sullivan's injuries or not. We must use the foreseeability test to be able to make a just judgment:

For this case it is first a problem of occupiers liability. The tavern owner is responsible for the safety of his visitors in this case Sullivan (is a visitor). The owner then owes a duty of care to Sullivan to make his visit at the bar "safe". It is reasonably foreseeable that by having let go the four attackers from the back door, the owner should have expected them to not give up the fight that easily considering their violent behaviour and the number of drinks they have had. The owner also failed to exercise the required standard of care here which could have been simply calling the police or suggesting Sullivan to stay inside the bar until the other four have completely left the bar premises. This act of negligence from the owner caused Sullivan the injuries as the damages are reasonably foreseeable by the owner.

Case# 7 Ch. 3

The defendant Chauncey owes a duty of care to owners of property (land, buildings,...) alongside the road he was driving on. Here |Chauncey cannot be totally responsible for Brown's reasons because of their remoteness.

The greater issue here is that even though one could argue that Chauncey knew that the consequences of his bad driving might cause losses to the farmers, it look like this kind of risk was clear to most of the farmer. If 50% of farmers use this alarm system then it shows that they are dependent on such alert systems and should always make sure they are functioning correctly. Brown was negligent in not making sure his alarm was working properly and may not sue Chauncey or Gardiner Transport for total liability.

To sum up, there is a duty of care requiring the driver to drive safely therefore it is reasonably foreseeable that Chauncey's careless driving would result in damages to third parties...