TORT LAW

Tort Law Case

[Name of the Institute]

Tort Law Case

Case Overview

Andrea and Davinder want to file a case against Susan, who owns a nightclub at the Quebec Street. The lawsuit is in relation to the negligence of proper management by the nightclub owner. Susan's mismanagement resulted in severe wounds suffered by Davinder, when he was stabbed with a knife by a drunken customer (Malcolm). Andrea, on the other hand, fell in the toilet, in intoxication, and suffered from severe brain damage. The facts of this case suggest a thorough review and reference to tort law. This paper identifies the key problems and facts of the case, followed by case's reference to conventional tort law, and advice to Susan regarding her potential liability, if any, for negligence of the club's employees.

Highlighted Issues in the Case

Andrea committed injuries under intoxicated condition. She entered the club from the support of her group friends who ensured the gate staff about caring for her in the club.

Andrea was left unconscious in the club's toilet, in the morning, if the club's CCTV personnel were alert, they could have located the problem with Andrea, and could help her avoid or minimize the impact of her injury.

Davinder was a teetotaller and should not have entered the bar area, if any, set exclusively for the nightclub.

Davinder was not hurt in the club; an unprovoked fight with Malcolm did occur in the club, but the stabbing took place outside the club.

Malcolm had earlier been banned from the club following a violent clash the past year. However, the club staffs were never aware of fact in the recent incident.

Case Analysis under Tort Law

According to tort law, every commercial or institutional setting requires the premise of a reasonable duty of care for the staffs and customers. In the case under review, the presence of security staff, CCTV monitoring and post-incident reporting to ambulance, signifies the safety measures taken by the club's authorities (Narayanan, 1994, Pp. 39-59). However, the problems in this case hint at breach of duty of care by the staff in some respects:

First, if Malcolm's name was under banned list, why did the doormen allow him to enter the club?

Secondly, why the staff failed to frisk Malcolm at the gate, if at all they never knew of his banned entry status?

Thirdly, is Susan (the club owner) still liable for torts committed outside his premises?

Fourthly, are Andrea's friends not guilty of leaving her to intoxicate excessively and hurt herself?

Accountability is one of ideas and core concepts of law, which shows strongly related by the applicability, and deployment of the rule of law since its inception and origins (Moore, Scott, 2009, Pp. 754-774). Apart from other considerations on their common history and development in the criminal field, since he could not yet speak of distinct and definite liability but rather "social modulator of vengeance", we can say that the first base on the notion that settled technical, legal responsibility partly still in force today was provided by ...