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
45
4 months ago
Preview (1 of 2 Pages)
100%
Purchase to unlock

Page 1

Case Analysis of Soji and Parental Duty - Page 1 preview image

Loading page ...

Liability for Negligence - Case of Sojia)A duty of careFirst, we must determine whether Soji had a legal duty to take care to prevent damage toMackenzie's Game Store. As we learned in class, we apply the test under Anns v. Merton andCooper 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 andtheft were completely foreseeable.ii)ProximitySoji is David's mother, legal guardian, and directly responsible for David's actions. The gamestore is a public-facing business. Although there is no direct relationship between Soji and thegame store, because she left her child alone in a public place, causing harm to others, a legalconnection can still be established.iii)Public policyThe law and society have a common interest in encouraging parents to supervise and educatetheir children. Without such a legal obligation, adults will abandon children to the point ofendangering the community.
Preview Mode

This document has 2 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Study Now!

XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
Document Chat

Document Details

Subject
Civil Law

Related Documents

View all