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

Haircare Limited - Case Study ExampleThey include both present and in store(predicate) expected losses. (Cornell Law School) The torts may be classified as specific torts pertaining to trespass, assault, battery, negligence, products liability and intentional hassle of emotional distress. In the instant case study of Hair Care Limited this paper envisages analyzing the licit position with respect to the claim for damages by Joan, the claimant against the Hair colorant manufacturers Hair Care Limited and Barber, the possessor of a hair dressing salon for the personal harm suffered by her by using the colourant fabricate 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 potency danger of the usage of the colourant and the requirement that a patch test is to be condu cted before use. Although, he was having association of the potential injury he didnt care to advise the people touch on. 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 art to take care, resulting in damage unwanted by defendant to the plaintiff. Tortuous liability arises from the breach of the duty primarily fixed by law. much(prenominal) duty is to care.In order to have negligence thereMust be a duty of careBreach of that duty Result in damageBreach of a DutyIn 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 Birmingham Waterw orks 1856 Negligence is the omission to do some subject 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 risk if it did happenPracticality and precautionsConsideration of the social value of the defendants activitiesProduct indebtedness and Manufacturing RisksA manufacturing defect will attract liability.In Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1935) maker 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 enormous 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 instance they invariably had any complaint and hence they should not be blamed . On the contrary they were really careful. The Privy Council express one explanation is that an employee was negligent then it