Business Law Assignment

2759 Words12 Pages
(a) Dylan was shopping at Quills Department Store when he slipped on the highly polished floor and broke his leg. As a result he was out of work for four months and he incurred considerable medical expenses. His leg did not heal quickly or completely because of a hereditary bone defect which he suffered. Hence he had to take on lighter work, which did not pay as well as his former employment. i) What legal action is available to Dylan against the proprietor of the store, or the cleaner or the floor polish manufacturer The case states that Dylan incurred medical expenses due to slipping on the highly polished floor when shopping at Quills Department Store. This case applied to Australian common law, implied terms of negligence. The…show more content…
Dylan can bring an action in negligence to compensate the medical expenses. ii) Will Dylan succeed in a claim for loss of earnings from his change in employment The issue is whether Dylan can bring an action in negligence against the cleaner and proprietor to recover damages for the loss of earnings from his change in employment. First of all, to obtain damages, the remoteness of damages needs to be determined based on whether the defendants negligence was a necessary condition of the plaintiffs loss. As was shown in Overseas Tankship (UK)Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2) ) 1966 2 All ER 709 and Metrolink Victoria Pty v Inglis 2009 VSCA 227, the damage must not only have been a direct consequence of the negligent act, but also have been reasonably foreseeable. Nevertheless, in this case, Dylan changed his job four months after the accident, and the reason why he could not do the former job is not because of the slipping injury rather the delay in healing time caused by the hereditary bone defect. However, Dylan might prove evidence to defend, such as the case of Chappel v Hart 1998 HCA 55, but no reasonable person would have knew his hereditary bone defect and provide proper precautions. Obviously, the risk was not reasonably foreseeable, and the loss was too remote. As a plaintiff can only recover damages for loses that

More about Business Law Assignment

Get Access