Answsering law quesiton Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Answsering law quesiton - Essay Example Jaime owed Simon and Davina a duty of care, being the owner of a restaurant which serves food to the public for a fee. Hence, he has the duty and obligation to see to it that clients are served well because he is engaged in the food business, and attached to this is the quality of service to his clients. Based on the facts of the case, there is clearly a breach of duty on the part of Jaime, the moment he forget to inform the chef that Simon and his guest only requested for vegetarian dishes. It was due to the fact that there were several guests that same night that kept him pre-occupied that he totally forgot to inform the chef of Simon’s request. As a restaurant owner, he owed a duty of care to all the clients and guests who enter and dine in his restaurant. In the case at bar, the fact that Simon informed Jaime only to serve them vegetarian dishes is an indication that Simon has already foreseen the damage or harm that will be inflicted upon Davina in case a different food, and not vegetarian dishes will be served to her. This act done by Simon in order to protect Davina is also known as the ‘neighbor principle’. He took the necessary steps to exert reasonable amount of care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his guest, Davina. It is thereof without a doubt that a duty of care was expected of Jaime to Simon and Lavina There is also a proximity between the parties, as Jaime is the seller and Lavina and Simon are the buyers of his services. Under the law, is it fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances to impose a duty of care in the case of Jamie. Here, Jamie is liable for the tort of negligence due to his failure to exercise reasonable care which caused a damage to Davina. His failure to inform the chef that only vegetarian dishes should be served is tantamount to negligence or omission on the part of Jamie. Therefore, he is liable to pay consequential damages to Davina because th ere is a strong connection between the cause of his failure to take reasonable care and that damages that Davina has suffered. Verily, there is a clear showing that Davina would not have been injured â€Å" but for† the Jamie’s act or omission. Hence, Davina entitled to an award of consequential damage because aside from the violent illnsess, she also suffered from consequential economic loss when she cancelled a photo shoot costs of the damage for a beauty campaign, which could have been an opportunity for her to receive economic gain. 2.) Jamie can raise the defense of contributory negligence on the part of Davina. This means that any award of damages may be reduced to the extent that the Davina, the claimant was to blame for the injury or loss inflicted to herslf. It is entirely Davina’s fault if she had too many glasses of champagne prior to her meeting with Simon and totally forgot to inform him about her allergic food reaction. This act shall hold her liab le for contributory negligence. The fault shall be shared by Jamie and Davina. There was also a mistake committed by Davina by coming to the restaurant in a sober mood, and totally disregarding to report to Simon about the allergic food reaction that she possesses. This act redounds to inaction, omission and oversight on the part of Divina. The Law Reform Act 1945(Contributory Negligence) provides for apportionment of blame between the