Skip to content
Class Notes

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.

Preview 1 of 2 pages

See the first page exactly as it appears in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    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.

1 more page in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Civil Law study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.