ISSUE: - will Harry be responsible for the act he committed and will he be charged for the broken ankle

of Kyle?

RULE: - “Negligence is omitting to do something that a reasonable person would do, or doing something
that a prudent and reasonable person would not do to prevent harm. It is the failure to exercise
reasonable care and skill that results in unreasonable risk of foreseeable injury.”
(Gibson, 2018, pp.106)

According to Gibson (2018), a plaintiff needs to establish a balance of probabilities against the

defendant that:

 Does he owe a duty of care for the plaintiff?

 Is defendant breaching the duty of care?

 Has the plaintiff suffered any damage due to that breach? (Gibson, 2018, pp. 108)

Duty of Care: In Duty of Care, there is always a responsibility owed by a defendant towards the

plaintiff as a moral responsibility. For establishing a duty of care, the plaintiff needs to answer to

the following questions:

 Was the risk reasonably foreseeable that defendant’s conduct could harm the plaintiff?

 Was there a vulnerable relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff?

 Are there any policy considerations that would prevent defendant being held liable to the

plaintiff? (Gibson, 2018, pp. 109)

Breach of the Duty of care: A person is not considered negligent or at breach for not taking

precautions against a risk of harm unless the following conditions are satisfied:

 Was the risk foreseeable? - It means was it a risk that any reasonable person in the

place of defendant would have known about?

  Was the risk significant? – this means that was the risk significant enough to cause

any harm or did the risk had higher probabilities of causing damage?

 In the existing circumstances, would the defendant have taken any precautions? – it

means that no harm would occur if suitable precautions were taken? Or does the

action of the defendant create harm? (Gibson, 2018, pp. 123)

Damages for the breach: To be successful in filing a case, after proving the first two steps, the

plaintiff needs to prove that an actual loss or damage that is recognized by the law was suffered

as a result of the defendant’s breach. (Gibson, 2018)

The decision that the breach caused damage or not depends on two elements:

 Factual causation: that is, if the defendant would have taking precautions, would the

plaintiff have suffered a damage? Did the defendant cause the damage? Is there any

relationship between the defendant’s negligence and damage suffered by the plaintiff?

(Gibson, 2018, pp. 129)

 Scope of liability: it means that, is it appropriate to assign the liability to the defendant

for its actions in causing damage? Or is the defendant’s action remote from the liability?

If the liability is appropriate, should the defendant be held accountable? This is concerned

with whether the harms suffered by plaintiff is the result of defendant’s negligence.
Once the plaintiff establishes all of the above listed elements, and the defendant is unable to

please the court during the trial that he did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care or he was at

breach of the duty, or that he was responsible for the damage that occurred, then the defendant

has to establish any defences to reduce their liability. (Gibson, 2018, pp. 133)

The two common defences under common law were:

 Contributory negligence:This defence talks about the apportionment of the guilt

between the defendant and the plaintiff assuming some of the responsibility for self-

injury or damage to their property. The principles are valid in defining whether the

defendant has been negligent also apply in defining whether the plaintiff has been

contributorily negligent. However, the common law rules regarding Contributory

negligence has now been substituted in all states by integration into their civil law

reforms. (Gibson, 2018, pp. 133)

 Obvious Risk:
Step 1: - To establish a duty of care, as per the fact Harry is defendant and kyle is plaintiff.

Reasonable Foresee ability: - In the mentioned case, it is observed that Harry’s intension was to teach
them a lesson that kyle and mitch stops trespassing in the land of Harry.

Vulnerable relationship: - There were no direct relation with Harry, kyle and mitch are two friends they
daily go for soccer and in return for short cut they come from Harry’s garden. After giving many
warnings to kyle and mitch on daily basis they use to perform such kind of activity. So, there was no
direct relation among them.

Policy Consideration: There were no such policies in which it was mentioned that a person can enter
into anyone’s property so, Harry’s intension was to make stop kyle and mitch entering into his property,
not make any medical injury.

From the Legal perspective, Harry is liable for the compensation, but his intension was not make any
medical injury.

Step 2: - To establish a breach, the fulfillment of below criteria is necessary: -

 Foreseeable Risk: - From the presented issue, it is been seen that after giving many
warnings to kyle and mitch, Harry setup a trap to teach a lesson his intension was not to
make them injured at high cost. So, it can be said that Harry is not completely responsible
for the injury caused to the kyle.
 Significant of Risk: - Through the act done by Harry that was clear that someone is going to
be injured a bit and kyle got serious leg injury after falling into that trash made by Harry.
 Precautions: - In the presented Case, Harry could have informed to the parents of kyle and
mitch about their activity while returning home. Harry has informed the students many a
times, later he trapped for the trash and his intension was not to create this much difficult
situation. Harry partial can be liable for breaching his duty of care.

Step 3: - To be successful in filling case against Harry, further kyle needs to establish that he suffered
from harm or damage, due to Harry’s actions.

 Factual Caution: - In the case kyle was injured badly with serious leg injury this made that kyle
will not be able to play soccer again, due to Harry’s negligence. From the presented case, it is
seen that Harry was not having intension to make kyle injured during such activity.
 Scope of Liability: - It can be observed from the facts that, Harry is not completely liable for the
act he committed, after giving many warning kyle and mitch continued their activity, for giving
them a lesson Harry created trench and turning off the lights.
After the deep discussion on the presented case it is seen that Harry is not completely liable for the
damage caused to kyle.

Step 4: - In order to form a defense, Harry needs to prove that Kyle was responsible too for the injury he
suffered.

 Contributory negligence: - In the given case, Harry setup trap for Kyle and Mitch just to give
them lesson not to create this much serious injury, it can be clearly seen that Kyle and Mitch
both are also responsible for the injury which Kyle suffered, after giving many warnings they
continued. So, both are equally liable for the injury.
 Obvious Risk: - In the given case, Harry prepared trap for Kyle and Mitch it was sure that
someone will get lesson that running into personal property without permission can be affected
this much, but Harry’s intension was to give them just a lesson not this much serious problem.

Step 5: - Harry is not totally liable for the damage caused to Kyle because after giving many warnings
Kyle used to enter in Harry’s garden without permission. So, both are equally responsible for the
damage happened.

CONCLUSION: - After studying the case, Harry was negligent but is not totally liable for the act he
committed, he only did to teach lesson to them and Harry will be partially be responsible for the
damage.