Business Law and Ethics for Future and Fiction

For Skye to successfully take action against Charlene for her alleged negligence action, she is required to provide the necessary evidence illustrating duty of care that her instructor owes her. (Mathiason, 2013, 880). Below is a discussion of the issues, correspondent laws, appliances, and wind up statements regarding Skye’s action against Charlene. Negligence, according to Robertson (2013, 31) refers to a presumption whereby a party is considered responsible for occurrence of accidents or injuries which may be averted. An individual is bound to be responsible for negligence action, especially if the defendant consciously refuses to take precautions care, so as to avoid injury and damage caused to people under their care and supervision. Negligence claims requires provision of substantial evidence brought forth by the plaintiff legally proving that the defendant undoubtedly needs to perform the duty of care (Murgatroyd et al 2016, 1). The four major steps essential in providing substantial evidence of perpetrated negligence includes the following: Obligation of care is a stated duty under law where individuals are expected to perform and conduct themselves in a way that causes no damage to individuals under their care (Pagura, 2015, 254). Naturally, the duty of care will be believed as to be carried out by family, relatives or people close to someone. According to the law of negligence, the duty of care is to be performed by any individual with a social responsibility of ensuring other people's safety, whether close or not. Charlene, being Skye's yoga instructor, acts responsibly in going an extra mile to provide her students with rubber soled socks to prevent them from unnecessary falling and injuries. She is keen to note that the floor of the hall she hired to hold yoga classes is slippery and cannot sustain the yoga moves. Most importantly, Charlene is able to note that larger student groups are not east to supervise without injury cases. Prior to this issue being noted, Charlene makes a risky choice of inviting her students for a free Thursday lesson to pensate for the lost time. As it is expected, the students turn up was greater than usual. The 45 students are contained in the same hall which was initially concluded to have limited space that can fortably a modate a maximum of 25 yoga students. Charlene should have thought of the dangers she has been exposing her students to by placing the tea urn in the same room of yoga participation. Since yoga is known to involve vigorous movements, the tea urn should have been kept in a separate place to avoid accidents of burning or tipping over the urn or table. Most importantly, on that day when the student turn up was larger than normal, Charlene would have been wise as to divide the class into half so that she could deal with the first group then the next in turns without having to pete for space. It will be right to subject the instructor to owe a duty of care to Skye because the tea urn would not have originally been placed near the practice area. Breaching of duty can be related to circumstances whereby a defendant fails to do something responsibly pared to a normal individual’s behavioral response if put in a parable condition (Iacobucci, &Trebilcock, 2016, 175).   Standard of care on the other hand is the degree of caution taken to prevent a person under a duty of care from harm's way (Barravecchio, 2013, 5). Charlene is responsible enough to purchase rubber soled socks to prevent her students from falling and hurting themselves. She is also concerned with the space of the hall and therefore opts to admit a lesser number of students so she can provide equal attention to all. On the particular day when the student turn up was 45, 20 more than usual, the yoga instructor failed to meet the required standard of care. She a modates all the students in the same hall well aware of the dangers inherent in her choice. The limit of space in the hall is what causes Skye to look for an alternative position at the back where she has limited space for movement. It is obvious that the instructor’s attention was majorly focused more on the students at the front than those at the back. This way she could not easily notice that one of her students was not wearing her socks. Voluntary risk assumption illustrates the protective action, taken by a defendant so as to prove the voluntary involvement of a plaintiff knowingly assuming likely risks as a result of   their action (Bant& Bryan, 2015, 427). Risk assumption by the plaintiff if proven by the defendant will reduce the right of pensation for damages and injury caused. Generally, the assumption of risk explains that a plaintiff very well aware of the dangers they are exposing themselves to goes ahead to indulge in the risky action (Goudkamp, &Klar, 2016,849). In the particular incident where Skye decides not to wear the provided dancing socks with the thought that the socks did not match her hot pink outfit, she knowingly chooses to go against her teacher’s instructions. Moreover, Skye makes a grave mistake of attending the yoga classes under alcohol influence. She must have known that alcohol will most likely affect her normal judgment but she blindly assumes the dangers she was exposing herself to. Additionally, Skye arrives late for her dancing lessons and cannot occupy her original space. She is left with no choice but to find a different space which is much less than her normal space. I would argue that it is Skye’s fault that she could not occupy her normal space in the hall due to her lateness. If she knew she was going to attend yoga classes, she should have prepared early for class and avoid attending the after party. In addition to her lateness, she ignores the risk of indulging in the yoga class under alcohol influence. Despite the fact that Charlene had not fully explained the need of wearing the socks throughout the dancing lesson, it was a mandatory requirement for all students to wear the socks. If only Skye would have considered all the stated facts, she would have prevented the risk of getting burnt at the yoga class. In the law of negligence, before a plaintiff decides to seek legal action for implied negligence, there should be available proof that their damages are resultant from the defendant’s negligent actions (Turton, G 2015, 80). It is also vital to reflect on the actual circumstance that led to the injury. Was it anticipated by the defendant or it unexpectedly happened (Law, 2014). Before Skye proceeds to take action against Charlene, she must avail proof stating that her burn resulted from the accused’s negligent action. Skye's skin is seriously scolded when her foot tips the table on which a tea urn and steamer are on. This causes the appliances to topple over her body resulting in the severe burns. Partially, it is Charlene’s fault that Skye gets involved in the accident. She should have looked for an alternative area to place the urn and steamer, considering the limit of space in the hall. It is also Skye’s fault that she skid for ignoring to wear the provided rubber-soled socks. Additionally, Skye who had consumed three glasses of wine might have had affected vision as a side effect of drinking wine. It is only right for both Charlene and Skye to be held responsible for their actions. Hosting of a large number of students overshadows Charlene's capability to efficiently supervise the students. Moreover, Charlene knowingly accepted to host all the 45 students well aware of the great difficulty of management she subjects herself to. If only the students would have been the normal number, the instructor would have been able to notice that Skye was not wearing the socks as instructed. This observation would have helped Charlene to take necessary action on her defiant student. On the other hand, if only Skye was obedient enough to put on the socks and not to put priority in her fashion sense, she would have refrained from skidding into the table. If also she avoided drinking wine before her classes, she would have been more alert. It is most likely that the wine caused her to have impaired judgment and bodily imbalance causing her to unwillinglyskid into the table. Bant, E., & Bryan, M. (2015). Fact, Future and Fiction: Risk and Reasonable Reliance in Estoppel. Oxford Journal Of Legal Studies, 35(3), 427-452. Robertson, A 2013, 'On the Function of the Law of Negligence', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 31-57. Barravecchio, JA 2013, 'The Tort Of Negligence', Legaldate, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 4-7. Bohlen, FH 1906, 'Voluntary Assumption of Risk', Harvard Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 14-34. Goudkamp, J, &Klar, L 2016, 'Apportionment Of Damages For Contributory Negligence: The Causal Potency Criterion', Alberta Law Review, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 849-862. Iacobucci, EM, &Trebilcock, MJ 2016, 'An Economic Analysis Of Waiver Of Tort In Negligence Actions', University of Toronto Law Journal, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 173-196 Law, T. (2014). Case Note: O'Mara v Air Canada 2013 ONSC 2931. Travel Law Quarterly, 6(2), 127-131. Mathiason, T 2013, 'Are You Part Of The Global Workforce?: An Examination Of The "Duty Of Care" To Business Travelers And International Assignees Under The Ilo Occupational Health And Safety Conventions And As Emerging International Customary Law', American University International Law Review, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 873-904. Murgatroyd, D. F., Harris, I. A., Yvonne, T., Cameron, I. D., & Tran, Y. (2016). The association between seeking financial pensation and injury recovery following motor vehicle related orthopaedic trauma. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 171-14. Pagura, I 2015, 'Negligence: What you need to know', Journal of the Australian Traditional-Medicine Society, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 254-256. Turton, G 2015, 'Risk and the damage requirement in negligence liability', Legal Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 75-95