Case Study: Tort Of Negligence

Question 1

Klinger (plaintiff) can sue the hotel (defendant) for tort of negligence. Klinger has the legal right to claim damages.

To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant:

- had owed a duty of care,

- breached the duty of care, and

- caused damage due to breach of duty of care.

To establish whether there was a duty of care, The Good Neighbour’s Principle can be applied. In which, in this case, foreseeability had to be present for the duty of care to exist. In the case scenario, independent evidence showed that there were no previous records of bee stings being suffered by guests, and that no hives or swarm was present in the hotel grounds. Thus, foreseeability of such an event of a bee sting is highly unlikely.

A duty of care has been owed. This can be verified by The Good Neighbour’s Principle. The Good Neighbour’s Principle states that individuals should avoid acts or omissions that they can reasonably foresee to cause damage to their neighbour. In this case scenario, it can be argued that the hotel would know of the closed, unmarked, non-safety glass of the balcony of the room prior to the guests checking in to that room. Knowing of the unmarked glass, the hotel failed to warn the guest before checking them into the room. Thus, a breach of duty of care.

A breach of duty of care can also be further justified by examining the four factors of the standard of care: likelihood of injury, gravity of injury, effort to remove the risk, and the social utility of the defendant’s conduct. The likelihood and gravity of the injury are both high. Effort to remove the risk was not evident at all, neither was a warning given to the guest. Social utility is also high as many guests would be affected if all the glass doors were maintained at the same level of care. Thus, a breach of duty of care can be

As an occupier, the hotel has a degree of control over the premises as well as being responsible of the safety of guests. The degree of control does encompass property owned by the hotel, in this case, the glass doors. Thus, it is within the control of the hotel to maintain these glass doors as well as notify guests of possible danger for using the glass doors. The lack of notice to guests puts their safety at risk, thus, dismissing their responsibility for guests’ safety. Therefore, the hotel can be held liable for the damages caused directly by the lack of maintenance and lack of notice to guests about the glass door. Frank has the legal rights to claim