In this case, Prentice can have legal claims against both Hall and the apartment owner,

Newman. Both Hall and Newman could be proven negligent. It is evident that Prentice was
not warned about the faulty lighting and loose step even though Hall was aware of it. Hence,
it can be proven that Hall acted negligently considering the duty of care element of the
Unintentional Tort of Negligence. A duty of care is the obligation to avoid careless actions
that could cause harm to one or more persons (Prenhall, 2017). Hall owed duty of care to
Prentice and therefore, she must have warned about the foreseeable accident.

Moreover, the law places a general duty on every person to take reasonable care to avoid
causing foreseeable injury to other persons and their property (Smyth et al. 2016). Hence,
Newman failed to take reasonable steps to secure the steps and lighting, which is expected of
him under standard of care element of Unintentional Tort of Negligence.

Another claim could be damage to the plaintiff which is any harm or injury (physical or
mental) caused to the plaintiff as a result of the negligent act by a person (Smyth et al. 2016).
Compensation is the goal of such a claim.

Note: Prenhall (2017) highlights that Damage to property or a personal injury caused by
another person is a civil wrong called a tort. If the injury or damage was unintentional, then
the wrong is called an unintentional tort. Unintentional Tort of Negligence is when you
can unintentionally cause injury to someone in a situation where you should have known your
action could cause harm (Smyth et al. 2016).

References

Prenhall (2017) Negligence and Unintentional Torts. Retrieved June 30, 2017 from
http://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_blair_law_1/2/538/137983.cw/index.html

Smyth, J., E., Soberman, D., A., Easson, A., J. and McGill, S., A. (2016) The Law and
Business Administration in Canada (14th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Canada Inc.