Obligation in Terms of Larry Samples for Students †MyAssignmenthelp.c

Question: Discuss about the Obligation in Terms of Larry. Answer: Obligation in terms of Larry Larry is creating nuisance i the restaurant on a regular basis by getting involved in an argumentative conversation with the employees and the other customers. This has a substantial impact on the clientele. In this situation the restaurant owner has a right to stop him from harming the interest of the restaurant. The regular nuisance created by him can be considered as a ground handling the situation. There are possible remedies available to the restaurant owner where he can restrict Larry from entering the restaurant. In case of damage created through nuisance, the individual has to pay off the amount caused in the premises. Another reedy available is to stop the individual from entering the restaurant (Barker, et al 2012). Obligation in term of staff The employer is held liable for the act of the employee. This type of situation occurs when an individual act n behalf of the employer. Vicarious liability pours the burden on the employer for the deeds of the employee. In order to draw the obligation of the staff a relationship test has to be conducted. The law creates an obligation under tort for the negligence done to another person. Vicarious liability creates the burden on the employer while accomplishing his duties (Lunney Oliphant, 2008). Obligation in relation to the other clients In case of public nuisance the restaurant owner and the staff can take action against the person creating nuisance. Any such harm can create a monetary loss to the company. This creates a need to develop precautionary measures in order to deal with the problem. There is mandatory obligation towards tee clients. A damage caused to the restaurant owner will create an obligation over him. The restaurant has an obligation to be met in order to deal with the nuisance created in the current pretext. This will however allow in dealing with any further tort (Giliker, 2010). Held liable for the injuries of Larry In case of breach of day of care, tort of negligence arises. There are three elements that need to be considered while taking reasonable care at the time of negligence. The defendant when fail to assure required standards and the damages that are paid to the plaintiff are remote. The given situation there is negligence from the part of employee. There should be some reasonable care must be taken in order to avoid such an incidences (Deakin, Johnston Markesinis, 2012). The Civil Liability Act 2002 states that in case of personal risk it is important to run a reasonable test which includes 3 steps. While considering the injury, the court will decide upon the preventive measures to be taken in order to avoid the consequences of the event. The court will consider the risk associated with the act while deciding upon the breach. In this case it was already clear that the door can cause potential harm to the individual. The foreseability of the risk is associated with the act that might harm the individual. The act of reasonableness includes the factors like permanently removing the risk. The concept of vicarious liability creates the obligation over the restaurant owner. The restaurant owner should have taken reasonable ace in order to avoid such incidences. Every employee in the restaurant was aware about the rusted door as it was the part of the premises (Mendelson, 2007). Vicarious liability pours the burden on the employer for the deeds of the emplo yee. In order to draw the obligation of the staff a relationship test has to be conducted. Due measures should have been take to avoid such incidence. As per the Donoghue v Stevenson, it was very well stated that the manufacturers have a final duty of care to the customers. In case of any fault a part of the manufacture, he solely will be liable to pay off the damages there is no need of having a contractual relationship or privity to sue for the negligence. The given situation is a direct incidence due to which the plaintiff suffered injuries. The door was rusted and unusable. The employees were known to the fact that this might affect anyone who uses it (Steele, 2010). Although intoxicated, Larry has a right to seek damages for the negligence on the part of the employees. There is a direct duty to take due care in order to avoid any such accidents. The risk was foreseeable and the damages were also known (Harpwood, 2009). However, in the given situation, the person is already intoxicated and was not aware. In such a situation he is equally liable for the act. He met with an accident due to his ignorant attitude. The accident would have been avoided if he was not intoxicated. Wrongs act 1958, Sec 26 states that in case of damage faced due to the negligence of the claimant, he has to pay equivalent amount of damages. The act of contributory negligence creates an obligation on both the parties. This is due to the factor that the individual has not taken effective measures to avoid the risk. The claimant is equally liable for the risk caused due to his ignorant attitude. The purpose here is to meet the effective measures in order to understand the amount of damages that is caused due to the contributory negligence. Hence, it is clear that the foreseability of the risk is associated with the act that might harm the individual. The act of reasonableness is to be conducted simultaneously while considering th e overall factors (Mulheron, 2016). References Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., Trindade, F. (2012).The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Deakin, S. F., Johnston, A., Markesinis, B. (2012).Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford University Press. Giliker, P.(2010). Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press Harpwood, V. H. (2009).Modern Tort Law 7/e. Routledge. Lunney, M., Oliphant, K. (2008).Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press. Mendelson, D. (2007).The new law of torts. Oxford University Press. Mulheron, R. (2016).Principles of Tort Law. Cambridge University Press. Steele, J. (2010).Tort Law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.