Duty Of Care Case Summary

Good Essays

1. In this case Ms. Smith might sue a building management for entering her apartment with out her consent or, at least, the notice. However, that statement might be rejected since the building manager had to act fast in order to prevent further damages, caused by flooding, for Ms. Smith’s and her neighbor’s apartments. There is no tort occurred because Mr. Johnson had a legal authority to enter Ms. Smith’s apartment. On the other hand, the tort occurred when Mr. Johnson moved Ms. Smith’s goods from her apartment to the locker. In this case, we can say that those goods are chattels, which are movable forms of property. Trespass to chattels occurs when a person interferes with chattels that are in another person’s possession and …show more content…

First of all, she has to prove that defendant owes her a duty of care. It must be reasonable foreseeable that Ms. Smith’s goods could be damaged or stolen by the carelessness of the building management. And, even if that was foreseeable, there might not be any policy considerations that would make it unfair to impose duty of care. When Ms. Smith proves that building management has to properly maintain locker premises and provide a decent security, she can move to the second step. She has to prove that the defendant breached the standard of care. Since Mr. Johnson didn’t provide enough security to the locker and acted less carefully, the standard of care was breached. The standard of care is based on the Reasonable Person Test , which means that Mr. Johnson must had acted in the same way that a reasonable person would act in similar circumstances. This means that Mr. Johnson had to provide security measures in order to keep Ms. Smith’s goods safe. Next, Ms. Smith has to prove that the harm was caused. Ms. Smith has to prove that she would not have suffered a loss of stolen goods but for the defendant’s carelessness. If she will prove that there is at least a 51% chance that the Mr. Johnson’s carelessness caused her loss, then the court will award damages for all of that loss. Finally, Ms. Smith has to prove that that type of harm she suffered was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s carelessness. This can be proved by doing a remoteness test. When

Get Access