(TIỂU LUẬN) the relationship between croll and quick is recognized by the law as employer–employee

LAW2447 Course Name Commercial Law Campus Saigon South Campus Semester Semester – 2021 Assignment Assignment – Team Paper Lecturer Dr Son Tan Nguyen Group Number Task – Team 35 Student Name & ID Word count – excluding tables, headlines & references list Pham Nhat Duong S3883259 Nguyen Quynh Anh S3877740 Vo Thi Quynh Nhu S3891702 4001 Table of Contents Scenario Case 1: Quick v Croll Case 2: Quick v Dr Duy Case 3: Quick v Hospital Case 4: Ned v Quick Case 5: Ned v Croll - Vicarious Liability Case 6: Ned v Croll – Tort of Negligence Scenario Case 1: Tung v Chu Case 2: Tung v The Black Rock Café – Tort of Negligence Case 3: Tung v The Black Rock Café – Vicarious Liability .8 Case 4: Binh v Chu Case 5: Binh v The Black Rock Café – Tort of Negligence Case 6: Binh v The Black Rock Café – Vicarious Liability Case 7: Binh v Hospotal Case 8&9: Tung v The Breakers and Binh v The Breakers 10 Case 10: Binh v Tung 10 Scenario 3a 11 Case 1: Gordon v Outback Burgers 11 Case 2: Sam v Outback Burgers 12 Scenario 3b .13 Case 1: Carl v Opera 13 Case 2: Carl v Direct 14 Bibliography 16 Scenario Case 1: Quick v Croll The issue is whether Croll committed a Tort of Negligence against Quick when he asked her to ride the scooters inside the store The subordinate is whether Quick was part at fault for increasing the scooter’s speed to impress the customer The relationship between Croll and Quick is recognized by the law as Employer–Employee.1 Specifically, Quick worked at Croll’s Mega Box Store which sells non-motorized bikes and scooters as a part-time employee Therefore, it can be concluded that Croll owed Quick a Duty of Care (DOC) The Neighbor Test is not needed in this case The defendant is considered to have breached the DOC if he failed to meet the required Standard of Care (SOC), which is determined using the four factors : the probability of harm, the likely seriousness of harm, the cost of taking precaution and social utility The Probability of Harm in this case is medium, since Quick was riding in an area with product shelves.3 Furthermore, she mentioned herself that scooters are harder to control compared to bicycles since their brakes not work as well as bikes The Likely Seriousness of Harm is medium to high since she was running near the shelfs with spray paint, proven by the injuries that the plaintiff herself received when she hit it However, the Cost of Taking Precaution is rather easy to establish.5 The store owner should have rules to not allow bicycles and scooters to be used inside the store No Social Utility was found in this case Croll has failed to meet the requirement of SOC and therefore has breached his DOC to the plaintiff The injuries that the plaintiff suffered were reasonably foreseen In conclusion, Quick can successfully sue Croll under Tort of Negligence for breaching the DOC Defence : Croll might argue for Contributory Negligence Defence against Quick as it was her idea of having employees ride bikes around the store in the first place.7 In addition to that, she also increased the speed around the spray paint aisle to impress a group of customers, which led to her loss of control and crash into the aisle Quick had shown carelessness and her negligence contributed to the accident Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 Civil (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) pt 4.2 s 43 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954) WLR 835 Ingram v Britten [1994] QSC 144 Therefore, the defence can be accepted and the liability is divided to both parties in reasonable proportion Case 2: Quick v Dr Duy The issue is whether Dr Duy (defendant) owed Quick (plaintiff) a DOC and breached it by not informing her about the risks of the operation which resulted in her blindness of both eyes The subsidiary issue is whether Quick was contributorily negligent for not asking about the possible risks The relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff falls within the established categories of DOC as Doctors–Patients.8 Applied to this case, Duy was a doctor at Oakley hospital and Quick was his patient, therefore, he owed Quick a DOC and the Neighbor Test is unnecessary The rule to determine whether the plaintiff has breached his DOC is similar to case The Probability of Harm in this case is extremely low, since there is only a 1:14000 chance of the risk occurring Furthermore, the Likely Seriousness of Harm is high since it can result in blindness in both eyes.10 Despite the severity of the harm, the Cost of Taking Precaution is easy and inexpensive to establish.11 A similar case, Rosenberg v Percival, accepted that had the patient been informed fully about the risks, she would have not undergone the surgery.12 Applying to this case, if Quick was warned about the seriousness of the relevant risk, she would have had a choice and might have rejected the operation in the first place No Social Utility of the defendant’s conduct was found in this case.13 Therefore, it can be concluded that Dr Duy has failed to meet the required SOC and breached his DOC to Quick Finally, the plaintiff’s injuries were reasonably foreseen, hence, Quick can successfully sue Duy under TON Defence : Dr Duy can try to reduce his liability by asking for a Contributory Negligence against Quick, as she didn’t specifically ask about whether her left eye can be damaged 14 However, she had expressed considerable concern of the possible complications before the surgery, which required the doctor to give a truthful answer in relation to the therapeutic privilege.15 Hence, the defence is denied Roger v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 Bolton v Stone, above n 10 Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18; 205 CLR 434; 75 ALJR 734 (5 April 2001) [77] 11 Latimer v AEC Ltd, above n 12 Rosenberg v Percival, above n 10 13 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council, above n 14 Ingram v Britten, above n 15 Rosenberg v Percival, above n 10 Case 3: Quick v Hospital The legal issue is whether Quick can sue the Oakleigh hospital under Vicarious Liability for the harm caused to her by Dr Duy The requirement to prove Oakleigh is vicariously liable is that the harmful act was performed under the scope of employment, which means that the employer authorizes his employee to perform a beneficial action for him.16 The requirement was met when Duy performed a harmful act under the employment of Oakleigh hospital Furthermore, the hospital acknowledged suspicious details in Duy’s job application concerning his medical degree but proceeded to hire him due to a shortage of doctors, thus committing a vicarious liability No defence can be made in this situation In conclusion, Quick can successfully sue Oakleigh hospital under the vicarious liability Case 4: Ned v Quick The legal issue is whether Quick conducted a Tort of Negligence against Ned when she hit him with the scooter, causing him to suffer a broken leg and $35,000 of operation fee The Neighbor Test is necessary since the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not recognized by the law.17 The test requires you to prove that the defendant’s conduct was reasonably foreseen to be harmful and the plaintiff is closely and directly affected by that The first requirement has been satisfied The latter is also met since there was a chance that Quick would hit Ned when riding the scooter near him The neighbor test is now satisfied and Quick owed Ned a DOC The rules to determine the defendant’s breach of DOC is similar to case The Probability of Harm is medium The plaintiff acknowledged that the scooter’s brake doesn’t work as well as that of the bike, hence making it easier to lose control and hit someone That chance was increased when she speeded up near Ned to impress his group The Likely Seriousness of Harm is medium to high since she was speeding while losing control, proven by the plaintiff’s broken leg The Cost of Taking Precaution is inexpensive and easy to establish as Quick can choose not to ride the scooter inside the store No Social Utility was found in the defendant’s action.18 Therefore, Quick had breached the DOC As mentioned above, the harm was reasonably foreseen, hence, Ned can sue Quick successfully under TON for breaching the DOC she owed to him with no possible defence Case 5: Ned v Croll - Vicarious Liability The legal issue is whether Ned can sue Croll under Vicarious Liability for the harm caused by Quick 16 Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board [1942] 72 Ll.L.Rep 119 17 Nikolas James, Business Law, (Wiley Publishing, 4th edn, 2014) 18 Above n 3, 4, 5, Firstly, Quick was an employee at Croll’s store The requirement to prove Croll’s liability here is the same with that of case 3, which was met when Quick committed the tort to Ned within the scope of employment of Croll.19 To be specific, the store owner asked Quick to ride the scooter inside the store to attract customer, which was beneficial to his store In conclusion, Ned can successfully sue Croll under vicarious liability Case 6: Ned v Croll – Tort of Negligence The legal issue is whether Croll owed a DOC to Ned and breached that duty when he failed to assure the customer’s safety in his store Ned and Croll’s relationship in this case falls within the established categories of DOC as OccupierGuest since the accident happened in a store where Croll was the owner According to Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna, it is the occupier’s responsibility to avoid foreseeable injuries to those who come onto his premises.20 Therefore, Croll owed Ned a DOC The rules and application of the rules to determine whether Croll has breached his DOC and failed to meet the required SOC is the same as those of case ( Quick v Ned) The Cost of Taking Precaution is also simple and affordable since Croll can have rules that don’t allow people to ride bikes and scooters inside the store.21 Hence, the DOC Croll owed to Ned was breached Finally, since the injuries that the plaintiff suffered was reasonably foreseeable, it can be concluded that Ned can successfully sue Croll for breaching the DOC and committing a TON against him No further defence can be made from the defendant Scenario Case 1: Tung v Chu The issue is whether or not Chu (defendant) had committed a Tort of Negligence against Tung (plaintiff) when he swung from the bar lighting grid, causing physical harm to Tung 19 Above n 16 20 Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] 162 CLR 479 21 Above n The relationship between the two parties is not established by the law, but instead through the Neighbor Test.22 Since Chu’s recklessness directly affected Tung’s well-being as occupiers in the same room, the test is satisfied, proving Chu owed Tung a DOC We now discuss the rules to determine the defendant’s breach of DOC The Probability of Harm is moderately high given how the cable was only supported by hooks and could not sustain the weight of a grown man The Likely Seriousness of Harm is also high any grid, made of heavy metal, falling upon anyone could cause serious physical harm However, the Cost of Taking Precaution is easy as Chu could have simply focused on doing his work With no apparent Social Utility to the defendant’s actions and reasonably foreseen harm, Tung can seek legal remedies for his injuries as the defendant clearly breached his DOC with no possible defence.23 Case 2: Tung v The Black Rock Café – Tort of Negligence Tung can also sue the nightclub under the Tort of Negligence to decide whether they had breached the DOC against him for the harm imposed by Chu There is an established DOC between Tung and the bar as Occupier-Guest as the accident took place in the nightclub’s premises The relevant rule is Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (as cited in the case Ned v Croll) which means the nightclub owed Tung a DOC.24 To determine the defendant’s breach of DOC, the first two elements are similar to the analysis in Tung v Chu However, the Cost of Taking Precaution is medium as the nightclub probably has to hire people for securing the lighting grid or bar training to its workers, which takes moderate resources There is no apparent Social Utility in this case.25 As the harm was reasonably foreseen, I still find the nightclub to be liable in breaching its DOC to Tung Overall, Tung can sue the nightclub under TON with a moderate success rate given the cost of taking precaution with no defence Case 3: Tung v The Black Rock Café – Vicarious Liability The issue is whether Tung (plaintiff) can sue the nightclub (defendant) under Vicarious Liability for his injuries by Chu 22 Nikolas James, above n 17 23 Above n 3, 4, 5, 24 Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna, above n 23 25 Above n 5, Similar to case in Scenario 1, we found that the nightclub is vicariously liable as the imposed harm was done under Chu’s scope of employment.26 As a bar of good reputation, aggressive vocational measures for all the nightclub staff and better securing of the lighting grid should have been taken to prevent Chu’s incident Ryan v Ann was a case law regarding the nightclub’s accountability of their employee’s behavior27 Applied to the case, Tung can sue the Nightclub under vicarious liability with stronger success rate than last case Case 4: Binh v Chu The issue is whether Binh (plaintiff) can sue Chu (defendant) under the Tort of Negligence for his injuries Similar to Tung v Chu and Ned v Quick, there is no established DOC; however, the Neighbour Test is satisfied.28 Chu's act of negligence also directly affected Binh who was in close proximity to the falling lighting grid, proving Chu owed Binh a DOC We now examine the elements of possible breach of DOC which is quite similar to Tung v Chu The only differences were that the Probability of Harm and Likely Seriousness of Harm are both comparatively lower than case since Binh was not standing directly under the grid as Tung was29 With reasonably foreseeable harm, Binh can still seek legal remedies against Chu with no possible defence Case 5: Binh v The Black Rock Café – Tort of Negligence The legal issue is whether Binh (plaintiff) can sue the nightclub (defendant) under the Tort of Negligence for his injuries With similar legal rules to Tung v The Black Rock Cafe, the nightclub owed Binh a DOC as OccupierGuest30 The two arguments of negligence: Probability of Harm and Likely Seriousness of Harm are similar to Binh v Chu31 Next, the Cost of Taking Precautions and Social Utility are similar to case 332 With reasonably foreseeable harm, Binh can seek legal remedies with no possible defence 26 Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board, above n 16 27 Ryan v Ann St Holdings P/L [2006] QCA 217 28 Above n 17 29 Above n 3, 30 Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna, above n 23 31 Above n 3,4 32 Above n 5, Case 6: Binh v The Black Rock Café – Vicarious Liability Binh can also sue the nightclub for their Vicarious Liability33 in his physical injuries With similar rules and arguments as case (Tung v The Black Rock Cafe), I find that Binh can successfully sue the Black Rock Cafe with no possible defence Case 7: Binh v Hospotal The issue is whether Binh (plaintiff) can sue the hospital (defendant) under the Tort of Negligence Similar to case 2, there is an established DOC of Occupier-Guest as the accident happened on the hospital’s premises34 To determine the defendant’s breach of DOC, the Probability of Harm is considered medium as the floor was slippery from the rain The Likely Seriousness of Harm is medium to high as serious fall injuries like broken bones, concussions can happen with moderate chances The Cost of Taking Precaution is medium to high as the hospital would have to place signs or hire people for longer hours to ensure the floor is mopped at all times which is unreasonable Hence, there is Social Utility in not taking precautions as the pathways in the hospital should be kept clear to avoid disruption for doctors and patients 35 It is unlikely that Binh can successfully seek remedies for his injuries against the hospital Defence: Similar to Quick v Croll, the hospital can make a case for themselves by arguing Binh is Contributorily Negligent in his injuries36 Despite the heavy raining night, Binh still insisted on taking the stairs to the garden at 6.30 which was earlier than the hospital timeframe for cleaning He should have been reasonable enough to choose a different occasion with sunny weather to visit the garden Using the relevant rules from Jackson v McDonald’s Australia, as Binh deliberately walked on the clearly wet stairs, the defence will be accepted with Bing being at least 50% contributorily negligent37 Case 8&9: Tung v The Breakers and Binh v The Breakers The issue is whether Tung or Binh (plaintiff) can sue the Breakers (defendant) under the Tort of Negligence 33 Above n 16 34 Above n 23 35 Above n 3, 4, 5, 36 Above n 37 Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162 Since there is no established relationship by the law, the Neighbor Test38 fails to establish that the Breakers could have reasonably foreseen the Chu negligence as they were only doing their jobs and were busy performing on stage as usual Case 10: Binh v Tung The legal issue is whether Binh (plaintiff) can sue Tung (defendant) under the Tort of Negligence for his injuries With no established relationship by the law, the Neighbor Test39 fails to show that Tung could have predicted the lighting grid falling which was away from his vision Ultimately, similar to two previous cases, this omits him being liable in negligence, and Binh would not be able to sue Tung under TON 38 Above n 17 39 Ibid Scenario 3a Case 1: Gordon v Outback Burgers The key legal issue is whether the Outback Burger breach the contract by not honoring Gordon Gorge the promised prize The sub-issue is whether there is a valid contract between Outback Burgers and Gordon Gorge A valid contract between two parties firstly requires a valid agreement, which consists of an offer and an acceptance.40 When an offer is made by one party to the group or the world, including a promise to pay valuable things to anyone who could perform the specific act, it then is a Unilateral Offer.41 Applying this to the case, Outback Burgers promised to honour a Toyota Land Cruiser to anyone who performed specific acts, including redeeming 50 coupons for a ticket, scratching a ticket with a gold car and presenting it at the head office The offer from Outback Burgers, therefore, is concluded as a unilateral offer Acceptance: A unilateral offer is accepted when the offeree starts to perform the conditions in the offer, and the offeree in a unilateral offer is not required to communicate the acceptance 42 Since Gordon had collected enough coupons and redeemed them for a scratch ticket with a gold car, it is concluded that he accepted the offer The minor issue here is whether the offeror’s revocation from the unilateral offer is valid Although the performance has begun, there are no rules that the offeror cannot revoke before the full performance’s completion in the offer 43 If the offeree could not complete the offer’s requirements before revocation, the offeree could not get the reward 44 Futhermore, an offer made to the world could be revoked in the same manner, and the offeree should have known about it 45 Also, the revocation could be done through a third 40 Smith v Hughes [1871] LR QB 597 41 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] QB 256 42 Above n 41 43 Mobil Oil v Wellcome [1998] FCA 205; (1998) 81 FCR 475 44 Shuey v United States (1875) 92 US 73 45 Above n 44 party.46 Applying to the case, when the Outback Burgers revoked the offer, Gordon had not presented the gold car ticket at the head office as required The offeror revoked the offer on radio and newspaper in the same manner as before; therefore, Gordon should have known the revocation from nurses, radio or newspapers It is concluded that the revocation is effective Since the agreement became invalid due to valid revocation, there is a missing prerequisite for a valid contract Hence, there is no valid contract between Outback Burgers and Gordon Gorge, and he would not be able sue Outback Burger for contractual liability Case 2: Sam v Outback Burgers When Outback Burger launched the same advertisement in the case between Outback Burgers v Gordon Gorge, Sam Speculator collected 100 coupons and scratched two gold cars After he showed the receptionist the tickets, another staff posted a notice of the promotion’s cancellation at the front door The key legal issue is whether the Outback Burger breached the contract by not honoring Sam Speculator the promised prize The sub-issue is whether there is a valid contract between Outback Burgers and Sam Speculator The relevant legal rule for a valid agreement is the same as the case between Outback Burgers v Gordon Gorge.47 With the same explanations, it is concluded that the offer from Outback Burger is a unilateral offer and Sam Speculator accepted the offer by performing it With similar rules of revocation to Outback Burgers v Gordon Gorge.48 Applying in this case between Outback Burgers v Sam Speculator, because Sam successfully performed all the offeror’s requirements before the posted notice, and he had not known the cancellation before, the offeror cannot revoke the offer after the full performance It is concluded that the revocation is invalid Another prerequisite for a valid contract is Consideration.49 Consideration can take the form of a promise to provide goods 50 In a unilateral contract, when the offeree accepts and completes the full performance, consideration has to be executed for offered promises 51 Hence, while Outback Burger’s consideration is the promise to reward a Toyota Land Cruiser in exchange for the performance, Sam’s full performance 46 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Ch D 463 47 Above n 40, 41, 42 48 Above n 43, 44, 45 49 Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87 50 Above n 17 51 Above n 43 including presenting the tickets with gold cars to head office is the consideration for the promise Therefore, there were valid considerations from both parties Finally, the court could presume that the contract would be legally enforceable, if made in the business context 52With Sam’s obvious intention to fulfill his performance and the fact that Outback Burgers bought the Toyota Land Cruiser indicated mutual intention for an enforceable contract Hence, there is a valid contract between Outback Burgers and Sam Speculator The sub-legal case issue is whether Outback Burgers could terminate the contract via unilateral mistake Unilateral mistakes happen when one party makes a fundamental mistake, and the other party knows or should have known but takes advantage of it 53 In this case, there is no clear evidence and strong arguments for Outback Burgers to argue that Sam should have known Outback Burgers’s mistake in printing scratched tickets Based on Outback Burgers’ advertisements, Sam could not know how many cars Outback Burgers planned to honor to figure out that his case of winning cars was ‘too good to be true’ Therefore, Outback Burger could not terminate the contract In conclusion, Sam could sue Outback Burgers for contractual liability and Outback Burgers has the obligation to reward Sam Speculator with two Toyota Land Cruiser cars Scenario 3b Case 1: Carl v Opera The legal issue is whether Opera breached the contract by charging Carl $120 for a set of CDs The sublegal issue is whether there is a valid contract between Carl and Opera There are two elements for a valid agreement: Offer and Acceptance 54 Advertisements on the Internet, which are asking for others to make offers, are invitations to treat, not offers 55 Therefore, advertising a set of CDs for $120 on Opera’s site was just an invitation to treat When Carl sent the first email to order a set of CDs on June, he made an offer to buy While revocation can be effective when clearly communicated to the offeree, the offeror must revoke before acceptance 56 Also, a valid acceptance requires clear notification 57 Applying to the case, while the 52 Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] WLR 349 53 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 54 Above n 40 55 Above n 17 revocation was communicated on June, the acceptance had already been valid because the offeror received a confirmation email from the offeree on June Therefore, the revocation is invalid Since the contract was made in business context and it is an obvious intention to buy from Carl by giving credit card details, the contract was legally enforceable 58 Consideration could be a payment of money or provision of the goods.59 Also, consideration can be value exchanged in the future 60 Carl’s consideration is the payment for $120, and Opera’s consideration is provisions of a set of CDs There are mutual considerations between parties In conclusion, there is a valid contract between Carl and Opera Carl’s obliged to pay for $120 and Opera’s obliged to deliver a set of CDs to Carl Carl could not sue Opera in this case for as explained Case 2: Carl v Direct The key legal issue is whether Carl could sue Direct for breach of contract by changing the price of a set of CDs The sub-legal issue is whether there is a valid contract between Carl and Direct Similar to Carl v Opera, advertising of a set of CDs for $75 on Direct’s site was just an invitation to treat.61 When Carl conducted a series of actions on the website, he made an offer to buy on June 2021 On 8th June, Direct rejected Carl’s offer by explaining the pricing error When an offeree rejected, the offer lapsed.62 When the offer lapsed, there was no agreement and no valid contract between them 63 Another sub-legal issue is whether there is a new offer (counter offer) from Direct According to the scenario, Direct just emailed Carl to explain their error and did not make any new offer to Carl Therefore, there was not any new offer In conclusion, Carl could not sue Direct because there was no valid contract between them Carl was not obliged to pay anything and Direct was not obliged to provide any goods 56 Above n 46 57 Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 107 58 Above n 52 59 Above n 17 60 Roscorla v Thomas (1842) QB 234 61 Above n 55 62 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 63 Above n 40 Bibliography A Articles/ Books/ Reports James, Nikolas, Business Law, (Wiley Publishing, 4th edn, 2014) B Cases Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954) WLR 835 Ingram v Britten [1994] QSC 144 Roger v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18; 205 CLR 434; 75 ALJR 734 (5 April 2001) Century Insurance v Northern Island Road Transport Board [1942] 72 Ll.L.Rep 119 Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] 162 CLR 479 Ryan v Ann St Holdings P/L [2006] QCA 217 Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162 Smith v Hughes [1871] LR QB 597 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] QB 256 Mobil Oil v Wellcome [1998] FCA 205; (1998) 81 FCR 475 Shuey v United States (1875) 92 US 73 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Ch D 463 Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87 Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] WLR 349 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 107 Roscorla v Thomas (1842) QB 234 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 C Legislation Civil (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) pt 4.2 s 43 ... fault for increasing the scooter’s speed to impress the customer The relationship between Croll and Quick is recognized by the law as Employer–Employee. 1 Specifically, Quick worked at Croll? ??s Mega... Scenario Case 1: Quick v Croll The issue is whether Croll committed a Tort of Negligence against Quick when he asked her to ride the scooters inside the store The subordinate is whether Quick was part... hospital and Quick was his patient, therefore, he owed Quick a DOC and the Neighbor Test is unnecessary The rule to determine whether the plaintiff has breached his DOC is similar to case The Probability