About the mother who suffered distress, anxiety and nervous shock resultant of the straying of the children onto an unfinished landscaping project, the direct link or chain of causation element is likewise in attendance. However, the emotional impact may not be fully appreciated by the court as it could possibly be an unusual and unnatural over-reaction. Again, this can be a mitigating circumstance.
d-2. Remoteness of damage. It is an element where the damage or loss must be determined as the proximate result of the negligence or quasi-delict. In the elderly/disabled customer, this cannot be made a consideration as the slippage was in truth and in fact the direct result of the unsafe pathway or of the lack of personnel in the center to have provided assistance along the passage. However, for the mother who was shocked, this may be a consideration, but one of mitigation. Why Because if her having been annoyed or distressed or disturbed is in such a level as will render a judgment from an unbiased mind that it is too much more than an ordinary or usual reaction from a human emotion. It is like saying that it is a remote possibility that the shock which the mother experienced would be in that proportion as to become one of a nervous wreckage.
d-3. Foreseeability. ...
The centre is liable for the elderly/disabled guest who slipped while passing the unsafe pathway. Although Rareplants exercised the diligence required of a good father of a family, it could have done better like providing escort or ushering assistance to the special customers who are handicapped. In sum, the centre was in a position to foresee that the slipping off track could happen to a visitor who has disabilities or limitations.
In the incident of the children having gone astray, Rareplants has to be adjudged answerable because it was in the position to foresee that some classes of visitors like adventurous children would explore the supposedly prohibited area and could have designated guards or watchmen for the purpose of avoiding any unfortunate happening.
ABC Accountants Ltd
c. Yes. There is a special relationship between you and Lucy. Any advice from a professional, even if not express or formal or written, is binding even if there is a proviso of non-accountability. The characteristic of that relationship which is not express or formal or written may be denominated as special in that it is not in the regular or standard form. As a matter of course, one that is not ordinary is special. In professional ethics, it does not matter whether the relationship is either. In the instant case and according to its underlying circumstances, however, you are not liable. Why Because your advice did not guarantee success in any given situation which was, as a matter of fact, subject to unpredictable variances and that if the client took it as a wagering decision, she did so at her own risk. In contrast, an engineer who advises this and