Problem Solving Tort

Mike runs a small bicycle repair business as a sole trader. He does everything himself; he fixes customers bikes and does all the bookkeeping, etc, for the business. Simon recently brought his bike to Mikes workshop to have two punctures fixed in the front tyre. Mike fixed the punctures carefully but was interrupted and distracted by a number of phone calls while doing so and neglected to properly secure the front wheel after he had finished dealing with the punctures. Simon then fetched the bike from Mikes workshop and took it home on the back of his utility vehicle. The next day Simon was riding his bicycle to work when the front wheel of his bike became loose causing Simon to fall off the bike onto the road. Simon suffered no physical injury but the guitar he was carrying on his back, worth $3,000, was smashed and a watch he was wearing, belonging to his sister Mary, and worth $200 was also damaged beyond repair. Vincent, who was in his garden at the time, witnessed the accident and was so startled he dropped a tray of glasses he was carrying, and they were all broken. They cost $300 to replace. Vincents wife saw him dropping the glasses and was very upset as they were a present from her mother. Being distracted, she knocked over a glass of wine she was drinking. The wine stained their carpet and it cost $400 to have the carpet cleaned.

Required:

On the basis of the principles governing the tort of Negligence, briefly explain whether Mike owes a duty of care to:

1. Simons sister for the $200 it cost to replace her watch;
2. Simon, for the $3,000 it cost to replace his guitar;
3. Vincent, for the $300 it cost to replace his glasses; and
4. Vincents wife, for the $400 it cost to have the carpet cleaned.

Note: Do not discuss the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 in your answer.