Case Analysis of Soji and Parental Duty
This case study analyzes Soji’s liability for negligence using the Anns/Cooper test. It explores duty of care, breach, causation, and damages resulting from her failure to supervise her child, leading to property loss at Mackenzie’s Game Store.
Mason Bennett
Contributor
4.8
50
8 days ago
Preview (1 of 2)
Sign in to access the full document!
Liability for Negligence - Case of Soji
a) A duty of care
First, we must determine whether Soji had a legal duty to take care to prevent damage to
Mackenzie's Game Store. As we learned in class, we apply the test under Anns v. Merton and
Cooper v. Hobart, which consists of three elements:
i) Reasonable foreseeability- Was it reasonable to foresee?
Soji knew that David was a child with a history of misbehavior, including vandalism and theft.
Although David had recently improved, it was still reasonable to predict that leaving the 12-
year-old alone in the mall would lead to an incident. David's destruction of the game store and
theft were completely foreseeable.
ii) Proximity
Soji is David's mother, legal guardian, and directly responsible for David's actions. The game
store is a public-facing business. Although there is no direct relationship between Soji and the
game store, because she left her child alone in a public place, causing harm to others, a legal
connection can still be established.
iii) Public policy
The law and society have a common interest in encouraging parents to supervise and educate
their children. Without such a legal obligation, adults will abandon children to the point of
endangering the community.
a) A duty of care
First, we must determine whether Soji had a legal duty to take care to prevent damage to
Mackenzie's Game Store. As we learned in class, we apply the test under Anns v. Merton and
Cooper v. Hobart, which consists of three elements:
i) Reasonable foreseeability- Was it reasonable to foresee?
Soji knew that David was a child with a history of misbehavior, including vandalism and theft.
Although David had recently improved, it was still reasonable to predict that leaving the 12-
year-old alone in the mall would lead to an incident. David's destruction of the game store and
theft were completely foreseeable.
ii) Proximity
Soji is David's mother, legal guardian, and directly responsible for David's actions. The game
store is a public-facing business. Although there is no direct relationship between Soji and the
game store, because she left her child alone in a public place, causing harm to others, a legal
connection can still be established.
iii) Public policy
The law and society have a common interest in encouraging parents to supervise and educate
their children. Without such a legal obligation, adults will abandon children to the point of
endangering the community.
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%
Study Now!
XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
Document Chat
Document Details
Subject
Civil Law