Business Law and Ethics Carelessness

Question: Discuss about the Business Law and Ethicsfor Carelessness. Answer: In regular use, the term carelessness signifies the lack of regard. In lawful sense it means that, one does not have the ability to work out the caring standard which a sensible man is expected to have in the current situation. Over all, there is a legitimate obligation to take into consideration when there is a prediction that the inability to do a particular task will cause harm. Carelessness[1] is a way in which various sorts of damage might be created if the potential risk is not avoided. Carelessness or negligence is breaking of lawful obligations which result in causing harm that are not desired by the respondent to the offended party. In order for a claim of torturous liability in carelessness to be significant, basically, certain crucial pre-necessities should be built up for each circumstance individually. To start with the main undertaking is to distinguish and characterise the proposition to which an obligation of care is. Carelessness is usually concerned with compensating the individuals who have experienced harm because of anothers negligence. In an event if the duty of care cannot be set up and appeared in the concerned circumstances, the rest of the elements of negligence[2] need not be perceived. Skye, in order to get compensation for her injury should fulfil the following essentials of negligence and can only be remunerated by Charlene if the injury caused to her has these elements. Essentials of Negligence: In any activity for carelessness, the following need to demonstrated by the offended party:- Obligation to take care- One of the fundamental reasons for risk is that the litigant had a legal obligation to fulfil towards the offended party. The following case can help us to understand this better, Grant V Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., 1935 AC 85[3], the offended party had bought two sets of woollen clothing from the retailer and derived some form of skin infection after wearing the garment. The woollen garment contained abundance of sulphates which the manufacturer carelessly neglected to get rid off while washing them. Thus, the manufactures were held responsible for not doing their duty or taking essential care of the product. In the given case, Charlene had been careful by telling her students to wear the socks before starting with the yoga classes and she had obliged towards her duty of care. Obligation to whom- This essential can be explained with the help of the case, Donoghue V Stevenson, 1932 AC 562 it conveyed the thought further and extended the limit of obligation. Throwing light on the fact who can be the neighbour[4] According to LORD ATKIN, people closely related to their neighbour and affected by their act which a man of ordinary prudence should have taken care of otherwise, will be held liable if they ignore their duties of taking proper care. In the provided case study as well, Charlene had fulfilled her obligation of providing all the items that shall guarantee the safety of her students while performing the yoga. Obligation is always towards the applicant- The fact that the defendant owed an obligation is not adequate. It should likewise be set up that the litigant owed an obligation of care towards the offended party. Light has been thrown on this essential in the following case, Bourhill V Yothful, 1943 AC 92, the offended party, a fishwife, landed from a tram car. She was being helped to place her basket behind her back and just at that time a motor car came in crashed against her tram car and the helper instantly died.. The offended party could neither see the perished nor the accident as the tram was in between them. She had essentially discovered out about the crash after the deceased body had been removed she went to the place and saw blood on the roadside. Harm was caused to her and as a result, she gave birth to a stillborn child of eight months. She took action against the agents of the dead motor driver. It was held that the dead person did not have any obligation of care against t he offended party and hence, no damage could be claimed. In the given case study, Charlene was careful towards Skye by telling her to wear her socks on time and also the same shall be helpful at the time of performing Yoga however Skye refuses to take the precautionary measures as she felt that the socks was not matching with her dress. Breach of duty[5] to take care- This is also an essential element of negligence. The aggrieved person must demonstrate that the respondent has made breach out of his duty and has failed to perform his obligations. In the case, Wyong V. Shirt the issue was whether foreseebaility can be regarded as a issue in blaming someone for negligence. The Court held that if a man foresees the risk that is involved in the given case then he may be held liable for negligence. However, if the same was not possible for a man of ordinary. prudence to judge the issue in question then he shall be not be held liable for negligence. [6]Charlene, did not breach her duty of care. She had properly taken care of all the requirements of the yoga students. Subsequent damage or Consequential harm to the plaintiff- This essential can be explained with the help of the case, Donoghue V Stevenson, 1932 AC 562 it conveyed the thought further and extended the limit of obligation. Throwing light on the fact who can be the neighbour[7] According to LORD ATKIN, people closely related to their neighbour and affected by their act which a man of ordinary prudence should have taken care of otherwise, will be held liable if they ignore their duties of taking proper care. The last basic element for carelessness is the harm brought about to the offended party was the consequence of breach of its duty. The damages should be in the form of damages to the body, harm to reputation or property, loss of money or any form of mental harm. Skye was hospitalised for two weeks and had no sick leaves. Hence, she has to take time off from work as her recovery shall take 8 weeks; she thinks that when she feels better she shall look for a job around Christmas time. S kye thinks due to this accident she can get a good pay out of Charlene. No, Charlene cannot be sued[8] by Skye, and Skye will not be liable for any compensation for the damages caused to her. As there are certain barriers for negligence, that have to be kept in mind while imparting justice. Contributory Negligence- It is the rule of common law that decides that any person who by his own actions causes harm or injury to himself cannot claim damages against another. Since, he will be considered in law to be the creator of his own mistake. In the case, Butterfield V Forrester, (1809) 11 East 60; the responden[9]t had put a pole over an open avenue which he had no privilege to do so. The offended party was riding on that path at 8 o clock, however the hindrance[10] was visible from 100 yards away, and he was riding very fiercely, and crashed against the poll and fell with his stallion. It was held that the offended party could not claim damages as he was careless. By the act of God- This is such an immediate, fierce, sudden and compelling demonstration that cannot be foreseen or predicted by any human knowledge. For example, storms, heavy rains causing flooding, high tide or earthquakes. In Nicholas V Marsland, (1875) LR 10 Ex.225; the litigant[11] had a number of stimulated lakes on his territory, for whose development or support there was no carelessness. Due to heavy rains a portion of the supplies burst and diverted to four country bridges. It was held that the litigant was not responsible for any damages as it was the act of God. Unavoidable Accidents- Inevitable accidents functions as a resistance of carelessness. An unavoidable mishap is what cannot be prevented under any cost. In Brown V Kendal, (1859) 6 Cussing 292; the offended party and the respondent dogs were fighting. While the litigant was trying to separate them, he by mistake hit the offended party on his eye that was standing close by. The harm caused to the offended party was held as the consequence of an unavoidable mishap and hence the respondent was not liable for compensation of damages. In Stanley V Powell, (1891) 1 QB; the offended party and the respondent, who belonged to a shooting party, went for fowl shooting. The litigant had tried to shoot a bird, but however he shot an oak tree and injured the offended party. It was held that this accident was an unavoidable accident and the defendant could not be held liable for any compensation of damages. In my opinion, the law of negligence requires that for any claimant to succeed, the court must be fully satisfied that the litigant who is being referred to owed him or her an obligation of care and that there was a breach of obligation by the respondent. Lastly, the harm or injury caused to the petitioner was a result of breach of his duties. Thus, in our case, it is well established that Charlene had taken full care for the safety of her students and had provided for adequate measures to keep them safe. It was Skye who did not follow the instructions and due to her own negligence caused herself harm or injury. Thus, under such circumstances she cannot get Charlene to compensate for her loss or damages caused. Since, the components or elements of tort and negligence are not served, Skye has no sufficient[12] grounds to avail any form of compensation from Charlene.