Question
Darcy, the manager of Boho chic, owns the store in Westfield shopping centre. Due to their Christmas specials the store has been extremely busy, with
Darcy, the manager of Boho chic, owns the store in Westfield shopping centre. Due to their Christmas specials the store has been extremely busy, with multiple extra stock deliveries occurring almost daily. During a shift Darcy noticed that some boxes which had been delivered were obstructing the entrance and was aware that he was scheduled to unpack and store deliveries that afternoon whilst the rest of the staff tended to the tills. However, instead of doing this he decided to take an early lunch break and deal with it once he got back. While he was on break Jamie, an employee, tripped over the boxes and fell, breaking her leg. Jamie put in a complaint to FairworkSA accusing Darcy of being a lazy and careless manager. Jamie was advised that she could file a complaint for some compensation while she's unable to work over the next 2 months.
Does Darcy have any liability over the incident?
The tort of negligence is committed by X if all of the following requirements are satisfied.
Darcy owes Jamie a duty of care
Darcy breaches the duty of care
- the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought reasonably to have known);
- the risk was not insignificant; and
- in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person's position would have taken those precautions.
In deciding whether or not a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court will consider:
3a) the probability that the harm would happen if precautions were not taken;
3b) the likely seriousness of the harm;
3c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm; and
3d) the social utility of the activity creating the risk of harm.
Darcy's breach causes Jamie to suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
- the breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm (factual causation test), and
- it is appropriate for the scope of the liability of the defendant to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability test), i.e. the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty (Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 34).
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started