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!