Ian V Johnny

Negligence occurs when someone fails to take reasonably prudent action in a given
circumstance, and the victim then claims the ensuing harm or loss. One of the many crucial
elements needed to prove carelessness here is a responsibility, which proves that the defendant is
accountable to the plaintiff. It is fair to say that Johnny pays Ian to maintain the pool. The other
day, when Johnny was at work, Ian left his van in front of his double garage. Jan was working in
the backyard pool cleaning it when a severe hailstorm hit. After that, the vehicle was destroyed.
Since the accident happened on Johnny's property and might have been avoided if Johnny had
opened the garage door for Ian, he requested that Johnny pays for the repairs to the van. The
roughly $25,000 in losses that Ian sustained should be covered by Johnny. It is evident from the
1932 case "[Donoghue v. Stevenson]" that a person should be permitted to sue another for injury
or loss, even in the absence of a contractual relationship (Bevacqua, 2020). A buddy graciously
presented Donoghue with a bottle of ginger beer they had purchased. Her nerves frayed when she
noticed a nasty odour after opening a bottle of wine. Contract law may prohibit Donoghue from
suing the producer because her boyfriend, not she, was a signatory to the deal. Donoghue
successfully sued the manufacturers for damages, however, because the House of Lords adopted
a new legal doctrine stating that everyone has a duty to care for his fellow man (Gordon, 2021).

The issue is whether Jonny (the defendant) breached his duty of care owed to Ian (plaintiff). We
believed, however, that Jonny bore some obligation toward Ian. Ian stated that the damage would
not have occurred if Jonny had not left the garage door open. Unfortunately, Jonny could not
afford to leave his front door unlocked at work. It may be riskier for Jonny to open doors all day
than to be damaged by Ian. In order to reduce the possibility of hail damage to Ian's van, a
prudent individual in this situation would not leave the garage door open all day. As widely
emphasised in Bolton v. Stone, a hailstorm was also improbable. Ian was, therefore, more careful
than Jonny. The defendant may argue that the hailstorm was an unavoidable occurrence, and as
such, the defendant did not fail to take reasonable care. In conclusion, Jonny owed Ian a duty of
care and did not breach this obligation.

 A person will not avoid their responsibility to take safeguards against something that
could cause harm unless the following conditions apply.
Therefore, Johnny should not be coerced

Polly V Sam
When Polly's friend Sam offered to drive her home, she gladly accepted. Sam was a licenced
driver with expertise. As Sam drove to her house, the rain started falling, and he had trouble
controlling the automobile. While Polly pleaded with Sam to slow down, he continued driving at
the same rate. The driver eventually lost control of the vehicle and slammed into a telegraph
pole. Sam and Polly were hurt, and insurance estimates put their losses at $200,000. In several
cases that have gone to trial, this has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff and
defendant owe each other a "duty of care." The primary question is whether or not the suspect's
behaviour was acceptable in the workplace. The courts set the standards of care by which this is
to be determined. Under this criterion, the court will determine what conditions constitute a
"reasonable person" (Cheluvappa and Selvendran, 2020). The defendant will be guilty of
dereliction of duty if he fails to reasonably perform his duty of care. The definition of "fair" can
be modified dependent on the particulars of each circumstance. For instance, if the applicant is a
member of a vulnerable demographic (such as the elderly, small children, or the disabled), the
defendant owes them a duty of extra care they do not owe to someone in perfect health. Other
additional circumstances could be considered, like as:

 The acts of the respondent were consistent with conventional practice or industry
standards. Unless there is evidence that the conventional approach is unsuccessful, if this
is the case, the suspect has likely followed protocol.
 There are beneficial social impacts as a result of the defendant's actions. In this
circumstance, the court may determine that it is inappropriate to acknowledge their
misconduct (Golding, 2021).
 The defendant's actions may have potentially dangerous repercussions. If so, they must
demonstrate to the court that they took additional efforts to prevent harm or loss
(Golding, 2021).
 Occasionally, implementing necessary measures is impractical or would incur exorbitant
costs (Golding, 2021).
 If this is the case, the court will not order the defendant to assume additional
responsibilities as a caregiver.
  Behind the mask is almost certainly a skilled professional. If so, the law will hold them to
the standards of similarly placed specialists in the subject, as opposed to the standards of
the general public. If there were professional standards, the court would apply them to the
defendant's acts instead of his expectations (Goldberger, 2019).

With these three points of contention, Polly may be able to prove Sam's negligence. Sam, the
defendant, was responsible for caring for Polly (the plaintiff). The defendant did not take
precautions worthy of the situation. Last but not least, Polly could be physically harmed directly
due to the failure. Sam has barely gotten his licence for two weeks, but Polly can still use it to
argue that he has had some problematic experiences behind the wheel in hazardous conditions
like severe rain. That sort of thing is to be expected. Even more so, Polly asked Sam to slow
down because she saw that he was having trouble keeping control of the automobile in the rain.
Because the defendant did not take reasonable precautions to protect the plaintiff, Sam was able
to cause property damage and personal injury to Polly. Our loss totalled $20,000. The defendant
can argue that he was driving slowly because he was trying to prevent a crash due to the weather.
Sam can also claim that Polly's plea to slow down was a factor in the accident because it caused
him to drive more slowly than he would have liked.

Sam's action fulfils the definition of wilful misconduct, so Polly has a high chance of winning a
negligence lawsuit against him. Until the following circumstances are met, a person will not
disregard their obligation to take safeguards against a potential danger of harm:

A reasonable person in their situation would have taken the recommended precautions if the
following conditions were met: the threat was known to exist (i.e., it was a risk that they knew
about or should have known about). Polly has a reasonable probability of success in a negligence
complaint against Sam, given that Sam has no unique defences and Polly's injuries are directly
traceable to Sam's carelessness while riding. Allen v. Chadwick (2015) is relevant to this
situation.

References