Haircare Limited Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Haircare Limited - Case Study ExampleThey include both present and future expected losses. (Cornell Law School) The torts may be classified as specific torts pertaining to trespass, assault, battery, negligence, products liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the instant shift study of Hair Care Limited this typography envisages analyzing the legal position with respect to the claim for ravishs by Joan, the claimant against the Hair colorant manufacturers Hair Care Limited and neaten, the proprietor of a hair dressing beauty parlor for the personal injury suffered by her by using the colourant manufactured by Hair Care Limited. The paper also discusses the liability of the hair dresser Barber towards compensating Joan for her injury and suffering.The instant case is because of the negligence of Barber, the hairdresser to advise the beautician or the customer about the potential danger of the usage of the colourant and the requirement that a patch test is to be conducted before use. Although, he was having knowledge of the potential injury he didnt care to advise the people concerned. Hence it is a case to be claimed by the plaintiff Joan under Tort arising out of negligence. The following is the discussion on some of the issues concerned with negligence and tort.Negligence is the most fundamental tort in terms of cases and mon... Negligence may be defined as breach of a legal duty to take care, resulting in damage undesired by defendant to the plaintiff. Tortuous liability arises from the breach of the duty primarily fixed by law. Such duty is to care.In order to receive negligence thereMust be a duty of careBreach of that duty Result in damageBreach of a handicraftIn many cases no duty of care has to be investigated because they are obvious. The question is therefore is there s a breach of that duty. It is obviously a question of standards. The idea of reasonableness is linked with how people react. (Jus dorange)Blyth v Birmingh am Waterworks 1856 Negligence is the omission to do something which the reasonable man would do or not do something which the reasonable man would not do.Other factors in accessing that reasonable care areProbability of the thing occurringSeriousness of the event at encounter if it did happenPracticality and precautionsConsideration of the social value of the defendants activitiesProduct Liability and Manufacturing RisksA manufacturing defect will attract liability.In Grant v. Australian Knitting mill around (1935) Manufacturer of underwear out of wool. One of the products to clean wool is sulfate. Through an error, the garment bought by plaintiff was not washed off from sulfate. He was polished & washed them but not sufficient which resulted in huge dermatological reaction which almost killed him.Proceedings were brought against both the seller and the manufacturer. The manufacturers defense was that it was the first example they ever had any complaint and hence they should not be blamed. On the contrary they were really careful. The Privy Council said one explanation is that an employee was negligent thence it