Question 6 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Question 6 - Essay Example n (1932 ) AC 562, where the question arouse whether a manufacturer of soft drinks could be held liable for negligence by consumer, Lord Aktins ruled, â€Å"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor.† (Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). 2006) In the case of physical injuries caused to the applicant by the broken stage, it could be said that Mulder could take action for negligence against Dana, the occupier and owner of the hotel. It is incumbent that Dana should have, with reasonable care and prudence, realized that the floor of the stage should be of strong construction to withstand heavy weight. However, in the case of injuries suffered due to lack of care of his friend, Skimmer, the test of vulnerability and control test needs to be applied. In this case, the defendant, Dana had no possible means of controlling Skinner’s entry, although she had taken the degree of care expected during such a situation. This being a case of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the truth speaks for itself), it is seen that Dana’s involvement would be limited to the stage accident and for the second accident, Mulder would have to bring action against Skinner, should he think it necessary to do so, for injuries sustained during to negligence and lack of care by Skinner. When Skinner entered the movie hall, he had entered a tacit contract with the owners. The injury caused to Skinner was not due to the lack of care, or negligence of the hotel authorities, since it was a stray incident, and unbiased research testified to the fact that there were no earlier records of such kind. Moreover, it was also outside the control of hotel authorities. In this case the question of foresee ability also comes to the forefront. The hotel owner, Dana, by any stretch of imagination, could have possibly imagined that Skinner would be bitten by a stray bee and suffer injuries. In the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Mort’s