Business Case

Scenario 2

The first plaintiff in this case is Anna, who had suffered a lot in both the cases and her chances of winning both cases are very high for her. Anna has suffered because of the lack of detail to attention by the restaurant’s cook who prepared her meal, futhermore, the doctors failure to look at the charts properly resulted in her having her right leg amputated. The restaurant had a duty to ensure that Anna’s food was cooked properly and free of any foreign objects, on the other hand the doctor also had a duty to Anna to enusre that the proper medical treatment was given to her while in his care. There was also a breach of duty, because they both did not avoid imposing undue risk to Anna. The element of cause in fact is also shown in this case, the restaurant and doctor negligence clearly caused harm. In addition, the proximate cluase is also found here, if not for the broken glass in the food, Anna would not have had her leg amputated. The very last element for Anna to prove negligence is harm, the suffering the plaintiff suffered as a result of of the defendants breach of duty, and clearly there was a breach of duty on both parties part. Because of this negligence on the of the restautrant and the doctor Anna’s life was forever changed. The other plaintiffs in this case will be the customers who got hurt while running out from the restaurant, and those who suffered from burns and smoke inhalation.

The defendants in this case will be the restaurant, because of it’s failure to properly inspect the food before it came out of the kitchen, and for not having a suitable set of doors for the customers to run out of in case of a fire or some other major incident that may occure during business hours. The other defendant is the doctor for his failure to properly read the charts of his patients, and doing undue harm to Anna by amputating her leg.

The restaurant could use the superseding cause