The Issue of This Case Is, Is City Hotel Negligent?

The issue of this case is, is City Hotel negligent?

There are four principle in this case, and the first principle is the duty of care. Duty of cares means the defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. Neighbor principle which is an element of duty of care is persons who are so closely and directly affected by my conduct that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. In the relevant case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. The facts of this case is Ginger beer was put in the opaque ceramic bottle, and the decomposed snail in it, Donoghue became ill after drink this beer. In this case, Mr. Lee is a reasonably foreseeable victim because he is able to walk close to the tennis court. According to the neighbor principle, the City Hotel has the duty of care for the Mr. Lee.

The second principle is breach of duty of care means failure to meet a reasonable standard of care. According to section 5B(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), a person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless the risk was foreseeable and the risk was not insignificant and in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken those precautions. In the relevant case Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, the facts of this case is the stone struck on head by a cricket ball and there are 4-5 meters fence surrounding the cricket ground with the 80 meters distance from the wicket to the boundary. Past 30 years, 6-10 cricket balls went over the fence. The decision of the case Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 is a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions. In this case, the tennis court of City Hotel with the 5 meters fence surrounding and a few tennis ball will be hit over by the 5 meters. The risk was not foreseeable.

The principle of section 5B (2) of the Civil Liability Act 2001 (NSW) is whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is consider the probability that the harm would occurs if care were not taken and the likely seriousness of the harm, also including the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm and social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm. The case Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] UKHL3 shows this principle. The facts of Paris case is Paris blinded with only one eye, a piece of metal pierced his good eye and no safety goggles provided by the employer. The decision is Breach of duty by failure to provide safety goggles. Hence in this case, the tennis ball broke Mr. Lee’ expensive glasses and he was injured, Mr. Lee’s face was hit causing his glasses to break and deeply cut the area between his left eye and his nose, it not very serious unless cause a car accident, it does not a big problem to enjoyed his life, he can walk, eat, work and do something else.. However Mr. Lee’s glasses will be broken by the other accident. The risk was not significant and the likely seriousness of the harm is not seriously.