Tort Tutorial

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

The issue in this question is whether JJ had any claim he might have against Alama Café for

their negligence in failing to make sure that the food are clean. If yes, how would he claim for

the negligence.

First of all, JJ need to prove that Alama Café owed him duty of care. According to the case of

Caparo v Dickman (1990). These factors are the damage is reasonably foreseeable, close and

direct relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the

circumstances as a whole must be such that it is fair, just and reasonable for the imposition of

a duty of care.

It was held in this case that no duty of care was owed. There was not sufficient proximity

between Caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo

nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them.

In comparison, in JJ situation, the damage is forseeable. The risk of customers getting food

poison or diarrhea if the food was not clean. Besides that, there are also proximity between

JJ, as the customer and the café staff. It is also fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty of

care to the customer on the café.

After establishing that the café owe duty to him, JJ need to prove that the café had breach the

duty of care. The suitable test in this situation is the reasonable man test. The question that

would be asked in this test is ‘would a reasonable man have acted as the Defendant has done

if the reasonable man was faced with the same circumstance as the defendant? If the answer

is ‘no’ then the defendant is in breach of duty.

This can be seen in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1865). According to this

case, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing

something which a reasonable man would not do. It was held that the company were not

liable since the accident arose from a frost of extraordinary severity, the effects of which the
company would not foresee or be expected to guard against, and consequently, there was no

negligence on their part.

You might also like