This assignment is based on Chapter 5 on Negligence. You are asked to analyze, u

This assignment is based on Chapter 5 on Negligence.
You are asked to analyze, using the ABCD test, a hazard you may have encountered in the past in your life. This could be something you have seen at school, or at work, or around your neighborhood, or anywhere in the world. Alternatively, the hazard can be hypothetical, but your own experience is the best source but is not mandatory. What is important is to describe a hazard, whether real or imaginary, that is stated succinctly with sufficient facts to allow a full analysis using the ABCD tests. What is most important is the analysis, NOT the description of the hazard.
EXAMPLE
Joe Hayden, a postal worker, is delivering a package during his regular rounds on a bright autumn morning to a house owned by Melvina Drumpf. Melvina left a rake on the front walkway that was partly covered by freshly fallen leaves. Joe trips on the rake and drops the package containing fireworks. Joe doesn’t know the contents of the package but when he picks up the damaged package the fireworks explode, burning Joe’s hand (his only injury), but Joe’s ambition to become a concert pianist may never come true.
The fireworks also shot over a fence, bounced off a ladder, then hitting and destroying an antique garden gnome purchased yesterday by Jason Trudo. The garden gnome cost $5000.
A Duty of Care
Melvina could reasonably predict that Joe would be walking up her front walk. If she left the rake on the front walkway it is reasonably foreseeable that someone like Joe could be injured if he tripped on the rake. There is no policy consideration to exclude this duty of care, in fact there are good reasons to impose the duty, since every homeowner should ensure that the walkway is safe for visitors and others like Joe.
Breach of the Standard of Care
A reasonable, prudent person demonstrating a standard of care considerably better than average, would conform to socially acceptable behaviour. Here it is not socially acceptable to leave a trip hazard such as rake on the front walkway, particularly if there is a probability that the rake could become covered with leaves. Since Melvina did not conform to this standard there is a breach of the standard of care.
Causation
If Melvina had not left the rake on the front walk, Joe would not have tripped on it. “But for” the breach of the standard of care by Melvina leaving the rake on the sidewalk, there would be no physical connection between the rake on the front walk and Joe’s injury. The hazard is foreseeable and there is a predictable connection between the the conduct complained of and the loss by Joe even if the particulars of the extent of Joe’s injury are not predictable. Melvina may not know there are fireworks in the package, or that they could explode if dropped or that Joe had ambitions as a concert pianist, but so long as the danger of injury is foreseeable then physical causation exists. However even if the particulars of the injury are not foreseeable such as loss of career options, Melvina as the tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of the losses because “we take our victims as we find them” (thin skull rule). An exception exists if Joe had a pre-existing condition (such as arthritis) that would have eventually prevented Joe’s ambition as a concert pianist. In this case Melvina is responsible for only the accelerated loss of his career options.
By contrast, the destruction of Jason’s garden gnome is not easily predicted. The loss is unusual (unintended exploding fireworks bouncing off a ladder hitting an unseen recent purchase in the neighbour’s yard) and therefore even if there is a physical connection between Joe tripping and the destruction of the garden gnome, it is not likely that the court would find legal causation and Melvia would not be legally responsible for Jason’s loss.
Damages
Joe’s injury to his hand is a legally recognized physical loss causing him pain and suffering, requiring him to take time from work or other activities (such as piano lessons), incur expenses for medications or physiotherapy and possibly thwarting his future career as a concert pianist. All are compensable by money payable by Melvina. However, Joe would have to prove that he had a high probability of becoming a concert pianist including the likely economic losses if he were to collect from Melvina for loss of his future concert income. The other damages such as prescriptions costs (special damages) or pain and suffering (general damages) are easier to prove and likely Melvina would be ordered by the Court to pay.