Kelly Case Study – Torts
Kelly Case Study – Torts
Negligence torts involve actions, which are not deliberate but result from negligence of an organization or an individual to a party him/she owes a duty (Steele, 2014). This action may lead to injury or negatively impact a person’s property. For an action to be termed as negligent tort, a person must owe a responsibility to the victim where he/she violates the obligation, which then results to the injury or damage to the victim’s property (Steele, 2014). In Kelly’s case, the Fort Worth Airport was obligated to ensure that all passengers are safe from any harm while at their premises. Unfortunately, Kelly suffers head injury because of negligence by ensuring that the floor was free from anything that can cause any harm to the individuals accessing the airport (Steele, 2014).
Elements of Negligence and How They Apply To Kelly’s Lawsuit against the Airport?
There are important elements of negligence that must be present to enable a plaintiff to win a lawsuit against an accused (Steele, 2014). This may involve a person or an organization failure to perform their duties, which may lead to the negative situation (Steele, 2014). One of the elements of a negligence case is the evidence of damages caused. This will involve the damage caused by the failure of the responsible party in performing their duties (Steele, 2014). The plaintiff must have suffered damages, which may include physical injuries or losses of property due to the negligence of the other party. In this case, Kelly suffered a head injury due to the banana peel, which was on the floor. Another element of negligence is the duty, which involves analyzing whether the defendant owed any responsibility to the plaintiff (Steele, 2014).
This duty is based after analyzing the circumstances, which led to the situation. In this case, it is the responsibility of the airport to ensure that its premises are safe from any harm, which might affect travelers since this is a public place which proper measures should be implemented to ensure the safety of those accessing the premises (Steele, 2014). The third element of negligence is a breach of duty, which involves the plaintiff proving to the court that the defendant owed him/her a duty and if the defendant breached his/her duty to the plaintiff, which led to the negative situation (Steele, 2014). A breach of duty includes neglecting performing reasonable care, which is required in fulfilling the duty to the plaintiff. In this case, the airport was responsible for ensuring that travelers are safe from the moment they enter the premises to the time they board their planes (Steele, 2014).
Of What Legal Significance Is It That The Banana Peel Is Brown? How Does That Change The Determination Of Whether The Elements Of Negligence Are Met?
This is also known as the proximity cause and involves analyzing the scope of the defendant’s responsibility in addressing a negligence case (Horsey ; Rackley, 2017). The plaintiff should be able to prove that the defendant’s actions were the cause of the injuries or damages caused to the victim (Horsey & Rackley, 2017). In this case, Kelly should be able to prove proximate cause by determining that the defendant could have foreseen the harm that would have resulted from the banana peel on the floor. However, since the banana peel was brown in color, this might be difficult to prove that the defendant mght have foreseen the harm that would have resulted from the banana peel (Horsey & Rackley, 2017).
This changes the determination of whether the elements of negligence are met, as it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant could have foreseen the harm that would be caused by the banana peel (Horsey & Rackley, 2017). Although the harm caused to Kelly may be within the scope of negligence by the defendant, the airport organization probably might not have foreseen the harm that would have been caused by the banana peel due to its color. This would be quite difficult to satisfy the negligence element of proximate cause (Horsey & Rackley, 2017).
All Things Considered, Do You Think Kelly Will Win The Case? Explain Why Or Why Not
Kelly might not win the case as not all elements of negligence have been proved (Horsey & Rackley, 2017). Although Kelly may be able to prove the other elements which include a breach of duty, damages, and duty of the airport facility in providing a safe environment for their clients, she may not be able to prove the other elements of negligence (Horsey & Rackley, 2017). These include the cause in fact and proximate cause which involves proving that the defendants actions were the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injury and that the defendant could have foreseen the harm which would result from their actions. Due to the color of the peel, it may be difficult to prove that the defendant was negligent in their actions (Horsey ; Rackley, 2017).
Horsey, K., ; Rackley, E. (2017). Tort law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steele, J. (2014). Tort law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.