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

Haircare Limited - Case Study Example They 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 case study of Hair Care Limited this paper envisages analyzing the legal position with respect to the claim for damages by Joan, the claimant against the Hair colorant manufacturers Hair Care Limited and Barber, the proprietor of a hair dressing salon 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 didn't 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 important 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 have negligence there: Must be a duty of care Breach of that duty Result in damage Breach of a Duty: "In 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" d'orange) Blyth v Birmingham 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 are: Probability of the thing occurring Seriousness of the event at risk if it did happen Practicality and precautions Consideration of the social value of the defendant's activities Product Liability and Manufacturing Risks: A manufacturing defect will attract liability. In Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (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 sensitive & 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 manufacturer's defense was that it was the first instance 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 then it