Full analysis of chef's mistake: The Law of Negligence (Case Study Sample)

CASE ANALYSIS: THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Date Issues The defendant (Michael) was the owner of an Italian café where he also served as a chef. Two of his assistants were absent from work and he was forced to work in the kitchen. Michael received a special seafood order which involves preparing raw fish. The raw fish must be kept cold all the time to avoid food poisoning. The defendant made the first special order and served the customer but forgot to return the fish in the fridge. When he received another order later, he realized that he forgot to keep the raw fish cold. He, however, went ahead to prepare another order for the new client (Sophie) knowing that the fish has not been stored as required. The plaintiff developed severe food poisoning and was admitted to the hospital for two weeks. Her doctors established that the severe food poisoning was from the fish she consumed from Michael's café. Does the defendant owe the plaintiff the duty of care? Rule * According to the Lecture notes (n.d., slide 3), the plaintiff has a right to sue the defendant for legal consequences and remedies if the defendant’s conduct causes harm injuries * The defendant intentionally served poisoned food to the plaintiff which caused the plaintiff to be admitted to hospitals for two weeks. * A person is liable even if he did not intend to cause it (UniSA, n.d., slide 8). * The business owner owes customers the duty of care (UniSA, n.d., slide 9). * The plaintiff can only recover damages if she proves that the defendant breached the duty of care (UniSA, n.d., slide 22). Analysis Michael was busy and forgot to return the raw fish to the fridge after serving the first client. Even if forgetting was unintentional, his act of intentionally serving a client poisoned food is a breach of the duty of care. Food poisoning was a result of Michael's negligence, and he breached his responsibility of safeguarding the health of his customers. The defendant is an experienced chef there is no doubt that his conduct was deliberate. He knew the risk of serving a client the warm seafood but went ahead to prepare it. Additionally, he could have declined the order as a sign of caring for his clients. Instead, he acted selfishly by accepting the new special food order, knowing the risk that his conduct could pose to the client. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), the court...