Business Law and Ethics Case Study of Charlene †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Business Law and Ethics Case Study of Charlene. Answer: Discussion As per the case study, Charlene who is the yoga instructor is defendant and Skye who is student, is plaintiff. At the time of yoga session 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 has a duty of care towards her students. She breaches her duty of care toward the plaintiff[1]. 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[2] 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[3], breach of the duty, damages and remedieslaw can be applied. 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 thelaw of contributory negligence as per the scenario of the case[4]. Negligence is the part of tortlaw 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[5]. Those are: There must be a circumstance of duty of care from the defendant. 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. For the negligence, the plaintiff has suffered any damages or injury for the negligence by the defendant. The plaintiff must prove the facts that the damage was caused for breach the duty of care by the defendant. Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 is one of the famous case of negligence where the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach the duty of care. In this case, the defendant failed to provide proper service to the plaintiff and breach the duties of care. Plaintiff ordered a bottle of bear in the restaurant while she drinking the beer, she found a dead snail in the bottle and get mentally shock and fall ill. That moment she decides to take an action against the manufacturer of the beer. The court stated that the person who is in a relation whom can be considered as a neighbor by stating that a person who can be directly or closely affected by the act of the person and the person could reasonably foresee that his acts could harm the other. Therefore, it is justified to give compensation to the plaintiff for the damages. The defendant may not relate with the manufacturing the beer but he have duties as a service provider to the customer where he failed to provide the service and breach the duty of care. He is liable for the negligence[6]. The defendant conduct a yoga class in Melany School of Arts Building and plaintiff is one student of her from the yoga class. For conducting the yoga class Charlene need a spacious room so she take two class per week and each of the class consist of 25 students. The floor of the hall room was so sleepy therefore, she provide imported socks with rippled rubber sole to every students which prevent them from slip at the time of yoga. Skye who is the plaintiff in this case regularly attain the yoga class. Charlene cancels one of the yoga class 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. The plaintiff who is liable for her own injury because when the defendant instructs everyone to wear the shocks, she ignored the instruction. She ignored the rules and slipped due to the slippery floor. As per thelaw of negligence, the plaintiff is also liable for her injuries in yoga class. Here, the defendant can use the defense of contri butory negligence where it is include that when the plaintiff and the defendant both are liable for the negligence and the damages can be negotiate. In the cases of Revill v Newbery[1996][7] and Nettleship v Weston[1971][8] 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. Court only allows the remedies when they found that the defendant is liable for any damages. British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956][9] is a case where court give order that the plaintiff should not provide any damages from the defendant because the amount of the compensation was more than he suffer the loss. When a damage occurred by negligence by any person then remedies can be claimed. The courts generally provide the compensations of monetary as per the law of tort. Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (1961) is another case of negligence where breach of the duty of care[10] occurred therefore the plaintiff claim the remedies from the defendant[11]. 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 somebodys 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 own injury[12]. According the defenses of the negligence the defendant can defense using the contributory negligence. The plaintiff is also partially liable for the negligence[13]. the defendant is liable for the breach of the duty of the care when she is in her duty and failed to provide proper service to the plaintiff[14]. The remedies for the negligence can negotiate and the plaintiff is liable for the 30% of damages and the defendant will give 70% compensation for the damages[15]. 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[16]. References Abraham, Kenneth.The forms and functions of tort law. West Academic, 2017. British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185 Cusimano, Gregory S., and Michael L. Roberts. "Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk."Alabama Tort Law1 (2016). Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 Gifford, Donald G., and Christopher J. Robinette. "Apportioning liability in Maryland tort cases: Time to end contributory negligence and joint and several liability." (2014). Goudkamp, James, and Donal Nolan. "Contributory Negligence in Practice." (2016). Goudkamp, James, and Donal Nolan. "Contributory negligence on appeal." (2017). Gregory, William A. "The Fiduciary Duty of Care: A Perversion of Words."Akron Law Review38.1 (2015): 6. Kilner, Tim. "When Discharging a Patient at Scene Can Lead to a Claim of Clinical Negligence." (2014). Levy, Neil M., Michael M. Golden, and Leonard Sacks.Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses. Vol. 1. California Torts, 2016. Nettleship v Weston[1971] 3 WLR 370 Pitts v Hunt [1990] 3 All ER 344 Revill v Newbery[1996] 2 WLR 239 Rhee, Robert J. "The Tort Foundation of Duty of Care and Business Judgment." (2013). Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (1961)