Tort of Negligence in Business Law

The aim of this assignment is to learn to apply particular aspects of the business law to practical issues. Every community or groups require sets of rules among themselves in order to regulate the actions of the members and balance the various interests of different members of the community. Both the individual person and the companies are bound by the law of the country they reside in. The law sets down rules for certain types businesses and organizations and allows them to use it to areas of employment of staffs. Business Law is essential to understand in order to identify the principles of core business and helps to identify when it’s the time to seek the legal advice.

Tort is a wrongful act (other than a breach of contract) that results in harm or injury to another party and leads to civil liability. This law provides remedies for invasion of various protected interests and claimants who have suffered harm. There are three main categories to identify if the party is liable, they are identified under Intentional Torts, Unintentional Torts and Fails to act in a way. Tort of negligence is situations where persons negligently cause harm to others, in order to succeed in action three elements needs to be fulfilled: They are defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. This assignment is based on the case Sanfa verses Maldivian. In this case, Sanfa was a lecturer at Maldives National University and it is a part of her work to travel on weekends to Gdh. Travel tickets are taken one month ahead by MNU. And, on 10th March 2018, she went to Kaadedhoo airport for departure. Her flight was at 15:30 but upon arrival she came to know that her flight was moved to the morning flight. They moved her flight to 18:30 and when she complained she was taken to their lounge. Also, her two sons who were at Male’ had a fever. All of these stressful situations caused her blood pressure to rise.

She then consumed an iced coffee from the refrigerator of the lounge and came to know that the remains of what appeared to be a decomposed snail in the coffee tin. She argued that she suffered a shock and gastroenteritis as a result of drinking the ice coffee. Moreover, since there was no sign indicating that the floor is wet, she fell off and her luggage bag got damaged. So, this case consists of issues that occurred to Sanfa because of the miscommunication and negligence by the Maldivian. This assignment would, therefore, identify the issues and discuss the applications of law and case authorities.

Identifying the Issues

There are various issues occurred in this case of Sanfa Verses Maldivian. • The first issue was, 10th March 2018 when she went to Kaadedhoo airport for departure. Her flight was actually at 15:30 and but upon arriving at the checking counter of Maldivian, she came to know that her seat has been moved to the morning flight. The employee who was in charge forgot to inform Sanfa about the change. Maldivian then moved her flight to travel in 18:30 flight and after complaining she was taken to their lounge. Due to this, her flight was delayed. Her two sons who were at Male’ had a fever and all these stressful situations caused her blood pressure to rise. On this issue, the defendant “Maldivian” should have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiff might suffer from the delay of the flight as well as not informing about the delay. Moreover, the lack of physical injury does not pose an obstacle to claim for any recognized psychiatric illness, and it is in principle, recoverable. McLoughlin V O’Brien [1982] is a similar case which can be applied here.

The second issue was, she consumed an iced coffee from the refrigerator of the lounge and because of the taste, she poured the rest of it to a glass and the remains of it appeared to be a decomposed snail which caused her to suffer a shock and gastroenteritis. Even though there was no contract between the manufacturer of the coffee and Sanfa, she can sue the manufacturer under the tort of negligence. A similar case happens in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). The defendant could reasonably foresee that someone, other than the purchaser, would drink the coffee and therefore, owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. • The third issue was while going back for departure from lounge, she fell off and her luggage bag got damaged. There was no sign indicating it was a wet floor. On this issue, we know that Maldivian owed a duty of care to Sanfa. Maldivian should have put a sign indicating that the floor was wet. However, not doing so can be concluded that Maldivian breached the duty of care owed to Sanfa. To further analyze the situation, we have to know that whether the harm or loss caused by the event was reasonably foreseeable. Lowery V Walker [1911] AC 10 is a similar case that we can use to identify this.

The first issue was, “Maldivian” didn’t inform about the flight change and moved her flight to travel in 18:30 flight and after complaining she was taken to their lounge. Due to this, her flight was delayed. Her two sons who were at Male’ had a fever and all these stressful situations cause her blood pressure to rise. On this issue, the defendant “Maldivian” should have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiff might suffer from the delay of the flight as well as not informing about the delay. Moreover, the lack of physical injury does not pose an obstacle to claim for any recognized psychiatric illness, and it is in principle, recoverable. McLoughlin V O’Brien [1982] is a similar case which can be applied here.

In McLoughlin V O’Brien [1982] case, Mrs. McLoughlin’s husband and three of her children were involved in an accident with a lorry which was the fault of O’Brien. Mrs. McLoughlin at the time was at home but was called to the hospital. On arrival, she found one child dead, another badly injured and her husband and third child injured and distressed. She suffered server depression and personality changes as a result.

The case was eventually heard by the House of Lords. And, the Court of Appeal held that it was foreseeable. But, they presented the so-called “floodgates” argument, that is lots of similar claims might follow. There is also concern that some claims could be fraudulent as mental problems are much less obvious than physical. However, on the case of McLoughlin V O’Brien, the Court of Appeal found that a duty of care existed and that there were no policy reasons for rejecting it. This does not mean that the courts do not impose limits. The sorts of matter which will be considered are proximity to the incident, relationship to the injured person and the degree of seriousness of the incident.

On this ground, we know that Maldivian owed a duty of care to Sanfa to inform about the flight delay and the flight changes that were made. And, by not informing can be concluded that Maldivian breached the duty of care owed. Furthermore, it is foreseeable for Maldivian that a person could suffer from stress by bringing changes and moving her flight and not informing about it. Hence, since she was suffered from stress and her blood pressure rose due to these facts, can be concluded that she can claim for her injury by providing the proper medical certificates and proving that on the court.

However, it can be argued that Maldivian does not necessarily have to check on every passenger’s medical condition. Also, it is a normal thing that passengers get delays on an airport hence can be concluded that minor stress might be possible which would not be server causing other problems. Also, if Maldivian was to give compensation to all the flight delayed passengers a “floodgates” may follow leading to more problems. Furthermore, the delay was not the only reason she suffered stress, she suffered stress worrying about the two sons on male’ who had a fever. Thus, it is not foreseeable for Maldivian that Sanfa might suffer from the flight delay and the changes that were made to her flight. Hence, Sanfa could win the case on the court by providing the proper medical conditions for her and proving that she suffers high blood pressure from the stressful situations. The court would then held and decide whether the injury is medically recognized or not as well as see the three elements are fulfilled.

The second issue was, she consumed an iced coffee from the refrigerator of the lounge and because of the taste, she poured the rest of it to a glass and the remains of it appeared to be a decomposed snail which caused her to suffer a shock and gastroenteritis. Even though there was no contract between the manufacturer of the coffee and Sanfa, she can sue the manufacturer under the tort of negligence. A similar case happens in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) case, the claimant, Mrs. Donoghue, and her friend went to a café’ where the friend bought the claimant an ice cream and a bottle of ginger beer. The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle and was opened at the table. The café’ owner poured part of the ginger beer over the ice cream which the claimant consumed. The friend then poured the rest of the ginger beer into a glass and the remains of it was a decomposed snail which came out of the bottle. Mrs. Donoghue argued that she suffered a shock and gastroenteritis as a result of drinking the ginger beer on her ice-cream and claimed £500 damages from the defendant, Stevenson, who was the manufacturer of the beer. The claimant could not sue the defendant in the law of contract as there was no contract between them.

However, under the tort of negligence manufacturer owed a duty of care to Sanfa. The defendant could reasonably foresee that someone, other than the purchaser, would drink the coffee and therefore, owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. Thus, in Sanfa’s case, we know that the manufacturer of the ice coffee owed a duty of care to Sanfa. And the manufacture of the ice coffee should reasonably foresee that the someone other than the purchase would drink the ice coffee and therefore owed a duty of care to Sanfa. The claimant Sanfa also argued that she suffered a shock and gastroenteritis as a result of drinking the coffee. Hence, Sanfa was harmed by consuming the product so she can sue the manufacturer of the ice coffee under the tort of negligence law, even though she doesn’t have a contract with the manufacturer. Since Maldivian is only the supplier of the ice coffee it is unlikely that a supplier would check every product they bought to ensure there are no defects. Also, if the product is within a tin and not in a transparent bottle, then a supplier cannot check if there is anything inside that containment. Thus, Maldivian could argue that it is not reasonably foreseeable for them to see that a consumer would drink a defect in the product. On this ground, we can conclude that it’s best for Sanfa to claim damages from the manufacturer of the ice coffee instead of claiming damages from the Maldivian.

The third issue was while going back for departure from lounge, she fell off and her luggage bag got damaged. There was no sign indicating that the floor was wet. On this issue, we know that Maldivian owed a duty of care to Sanfa. Maldivian should have put a sign indicating that the floor was wet. However, not doing so can be concluded that Maldivian breached the duty of care owed to Sanfa. To further analyze the situation, we have to know that whether the occupier of the premises has put a warning sign or not. Also, the warning sign should be enough to discharge the occupier’s duty of common care, provided that the notice was enough to make visitor reasonably safe in visiting the premises. Lowery V Walker [1911] AC 10 is a similar case that we can use to identify this.

On case Lowery V Walker [1911] AC 10 the defendant was the owner of a savage horse. He knew that the potential cause of damage to others by placing a field of graze without putting a warning sign. The field was a public cross on a path to a local railway station. The claimant was attacked, bitten and stamped on by the horses while crossing the field that had horses. The claimant sued the defendant for the damages caused by the injury. The decision was made by the judges by looking whether the land was used as a shortcut for many years as well as those buying milk from the defendant. Also, the defendant had not taken any steps to warn or avoid the potential problem.

Hence, the judges concluded that the defendant was liable to the claimant in this case. The court held that even though the plaintiff did not have the permission to use or cross the defendant’s land, the defendant should have put a license or warning sign on the land to prevent from trespass. And, it was the fault of the defendant that the claimant suffered and got injured by the horses on the field. Since the defendant did not take action to prevent people from crossing the land previously and some were customers who purchased milk from him can be concluded that the cause of the problem is more likely to be not putting a warning sign. Thus, on Sanfa V Maldivian case we know that the occupier “Maldivian” should have put a warning sign indicating that the floor was wet. But not doing so can be concluded that the defendant breached the duty of care owed. Also, it is very likely that a person would fall, if the floor was wet hence the harm caused was also reasonably foreseeable. And the claimant luggage bag got damaged when she fell off. By not putting a warning sign indicating that the floor was wet, makes the claimant “Sanfa” not safe to visit or cross the floor as well. Hence, Sanfa can sue Maldivian for the luggage damages she got in the accident. On this ground considering the tort of negligence law, it is very likely that she will succeed in her court trial versus Maldivian.

Conclusion

On Sanfa V Maldivian case we identified the main three issues which are in detail explained in this assignment. On the first issue, Sanfa could sue Maldivian for not informing about her flight changes and the flight delay. Also, the consequences she suffered as a result of those events can be claimed under the tort of negligence law. She could also win this case in favor of her in court if she provides her medical conditions and proving that she suffered from stress which was caused by the actions of Maldivian. On the second issue, she suffered a shock and gastroenteritis by consuming a defective product which was on the lounge refrigerator of the Maldivian. Hence, on this issue based on the facts, under the tort of negligence law Sanfa can sue the manufacturer of the defect product instead of Maldivian. On the third issue, she fell off from a wet floor where there was no sign indicating that the floor was wet. Hence, this is clearly the occupier’s fault and Maldivian would be liable and Sanfa can sue and claim Maldivian for the damages she got.