Case of Mr V and Miss Z

Mr V moved a sign ‘caution wet floor’ to allow him to walk under a ladder used by the centre`s maintenance man. Suddenly a boy started to shout because the ladder had fallen on his head. He wants to sue Miss Z because she is the owner and manager of this centre. Staff of the centre put that sign because they know they owed a duty of care and they can use novus actus interveniens as a defence because Mr V moved the sign.

Case of Miss Z, STU advertising agency and PQR

There is STU above the fitness centre who hired decorators who were using an electric lift which shorted out the electricity in the whole building. That caused losses for Miss Z for the rest of the day and she wants to sue STU. STU has breached the duty of care after neighbours. But Miss Z cannot sue STU, she can claim for financial losses to PQR only because their workers did damage to her business. This situation is similar to Welsh Plastic case.

Case of PQR and Miss Z

PQR`s workers were using a tin of paint that had fallen to someone`s car, but the owner uses the brief case to protect his car and it deflected the pain onto Miss Z`s car. She wants to sue, but the defence of PQR is novus actus interveniens. They can use that as a defence according to Scott v Shepherd case. If they damage the first car they will be liable for those damages, but they cannot be responsible for damages done to Miss Z`s car.

Applying the elements of vicarious liability

According to elements of vicarious liability I will explain if there is a contact, how the law applies, can someone sue in scenario 5.