Duty of care characterizes an inherent aspect of tort law; therefore, in any action taken the consequences thereto the action on others should be critically analyzed to avoid causing harm, intentionally or unintentionally. Hence, a tort can be described as a civil wrong committed knowingly or unknowingly through negligence and failure to exercise duty of care. It must be noted that ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defense. In light of these, Harry Highpants and the Grasshopper Kung Fu Club can be sued for compensation for Jackie’s injuries based on their misleading express stipulation of the safety in wearing the specialized kung fu shoes.
The existence of a duty of care is a question of law; therefore, a duty of care is not based on facts but the application of the law which is determined by a judge or members of a jury The facts of the case state that harry Highpants knowingly coerced Jackie to wear the harmful shoes despite his reluctance to do so. The concession of the doctor with Jackie that the use of the shoes would result in an injury to the knee was categorically ignored by Harry Highpants. Therefore, despite Jackie’s misgivings and concerns, the threats of not sitting for the examination constitutes coercion, hence actionable tort liabilities on the part of harry Highpants.
The prerequisites and salient features of the existence of a duty of care are critical in establishing a tort-relationship. Hence factors like reasonable foreseeability, reliance, compassion, knowledge, vulnerability of the victim and control over the cause of the injury are critical in establishing the existence of a duty of care. The criteria used in evaluation of negligence requires a determination as to whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether the defendant violated that duty, whether the plaintiff’s injury was as a result of the defendants violation of duty of care and whether the injury was foreseeable by defendants actions; therefore, an inherent consequence of those actions.
People are expected to exercise reasonable care in lieu of others; when acting by taking in to account the potential harm that might be foreseeable and can lead to causing harm to other people. Tort law significantly covers semi- permanent or permanent physical injuries which are acquired through painful affliction of the injury as a result of negligence to observe adequate duty of care. In light of these it is evident that the injury resulted from the use of the specialized shoes which were forcibly imposed upon Jackie qualifies him to sue for compensation under tortuous liability.
This gives Jackie the basis in which to Sue Harry Highpants and the Grasshopper Kung Fu club. This is due to the fact that no one at the Club has ever before been required to wear the shoes in training or at a grading examination, yet they insisted that Jackie should do the examination using them as an the recommended shoe for enhancing performance. The assertions by Dr Jenny Butcher, a knee specialist; that the use of the specialized kung fu shoes would result in tearing of Jackie’s knee ligaments go unheeded. Hence despite the warning, Harry Highpants reiterates that the shoes must be used, therefore, knowingly causes Jackie to take the grading examination while wearing the potentially harmful shoes.
Grasshopper Kung Fu club imposes a contract that exempts the club from any kind of responsibility towards any form of injury or its occurrence; however, under tort law each person owes a duty of care to the other irrespective of the existing contractual relationship. Individuals should conduct themselves in a cautious, prudent and attentive manner which is construed as reasonable in adherence to duty of care towards others.
Therefore, any action that does not conform to these standards of care, then these actions is to be considered as negligent, and any damages that result may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence. A person may be owed a duty of care by another so that they do not suffer any harm or loss as a result of concealing facts either knowingly or unknowingly. Hence a breach of duty is enforced where a responsible person failed to take due care in their responsibilities leading to the occurrence of a civil wrong; therefore, compensation is imposed on the defendant to mitigate the plaintiffs suffering.
A duty of care is obligated on individuals or groups undertaking an action which can reasonably cause harm to another, either mentally, economically, or physically. This includes activities like driving; where most likely physical injury may occur. Pure omissions are where a person is yet to create harm causing situation, no existence of duty of care to warn others of dangerous situations or preventing harm from occurring to them, and liability may arise where there is the existence of a special relationship to necessitate them.
It is a legal requirement that people should not harm their neighbors. Just as the maxim goes “love thy neighbors as you love yourself”. Neighbors in this case mean people who can be directly and closely affected by individual’s actions; hence they must be reasonably borne mind as being affected when we are directing our minds towards actions. In this case, Jackie foresaw the act and objected telling Harry Highpants that he just will not sit for the grading examination; but Harry insisted he should sit for the examination knowing remarkably well that the shoe had detrimental health effects.
For one not to breach a duty of care, he or she must have met the standard of a reasonable man' A reasonable person is an objective standard used to measure a person's understanding or conduct, and it is based on an average human being. It does not need perfection, but considers that an average human being can not foresee all risks. The average person is assumed to be careful and prudent. A breach of duty occurs after a person or company does not live up to the level of care; if a duty of care is owed towards another company or man. If, one's breach of duty leads to another's harm or injury then, the person might be liable for negligence.
Harry and Grasshopper Kung Fu club had a reasonable duty of care towards Jackie. Harry did not exercise the same level of reasonable care; that any other person in his status would have used in order to prevent Jackie’s injury. Harry foresaw the risk of Jackie's injury since Jackie and the doctor had expressed their concerns but he insisted asserting that the shoes were safe and the doctor was making evasive comments in an attempt to evade legal liability.
There was the presence of an alternative that might have prevented the injury. The cost of using safer alternative was considerably less than the risk involved in not using them. Breach of duty is not limited to people who are in oral or written contracts. Every society member has a duty to practice reasonable care towards other people not forgetting their property. Harry Highpants and the Grasshopper Kung Fu Club owed Jackie a duty of care; therefore, their negligence in exposing Jackie to a substantial risk which is breaching of duty of care.
This means that causation gives a means of connection of conduct with the effect resulting, which is an injury in our case. When it comes to criminal law, it is described as an act from which the injury or other effect came from and is added to a state of mind comprising guilt. Causation is applicable only where results have been achieved. Causation means primary and secondary causes coming together and leading to effect and recompense. There is nothing in this world which is not changed or fixed in form. Everything has a primary cause. When this comes into contact with a chance or condition which happens to be a secondary cause, the outcome of this conjunction appears as the effect which leaves traces behind.
When a primary cause does not meet a secondary cause, it does not produce an effect and recompense. Every phenomenon is produced and destroyed by cause. This indicates that a thing comes from or is produced through the need of a condition which is a secondary cause. Anything cannot take form unless there is the presence of a condition which is appropriate. The substances being produced change when there is change in condition and take a different form. Functions of the mind are the same; everything has to follow this basic rule including Jackie’s case.
Jackie can establish that the injury he suffered was caused by the Harry's negligence. This is because in this case when we apply the test of 'but for' we will resolve the problem of causation in tort law. That is 'but for' Harry's actions, would Jackie have suffered the loss? The answer is no; hence Harry and the Grasshopper Kung Fu club is liable for negligence in excising due care. The act of denying the Jackie the chance to do the examination on bare feet as usual is the cause of the loss sustained. The injury would not have occurred if the Harry and the club did not breach the duty.