WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT CLEARLY STATE IT, DO I STILL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR PEOPLE OR THINGS AROUND ME ?

In the previous post, we saw that Joji may be 

held responsible for causing harm to the stray animal because the law says so. However, there are situations where the law may not directly state it, however, the general principle of the law is that you must take reasonable care to avoid doing anything that you can guess would likely cause harm to any person that you can foresee may be affected by what you are doing.  

For example, you may not need a specific written law to tell you that if you are a ‘matron’ of a primary boarding school, you should take care to make sure you do not do anything that may cause the children under your care to be harmed physically, mentally or emotionally. The law forces this duty of care on you and if you break it, you may be held liable for what is known as NEGLIGENCE under the law.  

Remember to take care. Of yourself and your ‘neighbors

Do you have any examples of situations you believe may force a duty of care onto someone? Or questions about a scenario you heard about or have witnessed and want help to know whether there was a possible breaking of the duty of care? Comment here or send us a message in the inbox and we shall respond as soon as possible. 

#BarefootLaw 

#osutayusuf