The following report will be looking at the relevant tort for case number 7. Plaintiff, Debbie White has made a complaint towards her younger brother, the defendant who she attended his birthday party, and consumed a piece of the cake. As a result, Debbie suffered stomach cramps and vomiting for some hours. Her local doctor discovered small traces of mercury, which had been mixed in with the cake. The Cake manufacturer, Sweet Temptation LTD, admitted the presence of mercury, but said they had no obligation to Debbie. As this case involves a private dispute between individuals it becomes a civil case, White v. Black. .
Firstly this case will be have to be looked at two different angles, negligence, this will determine who is responsible for the mercury which was discovered in the cake, and one of the three elements, the breach of duty of care. This will provide answers to whether or not the cake manufacturers will be blamed for the incident. The plaintiff can claim negligence cases if he or she has a strong case behind them and that their facts are relevant to the case, Debbie White's case falls under the category of breach of duty of care. .
As it was the defendants, her brothers, birthday party, it was advised not personally by the defendant, but by politeness, that she consume a piece of the cake. Debbie is entitled to a fair trial against her brother, as he also has the opportunity to sue the cake manufacturer. Under the Duty of Cared liability, the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendant for damages internally. Except if the defendant did not reach his breach of care, which the facts clearly show, he did. The brother invited his older sister to attend his birthday party to enjoy time together instead a mistake occurred which he could not prevent. The defendant is somewhat negligent as he caused the problem although it was not foreseeable, instead of Debbie suing the defendant, each can instead, sue the manufacturer for not reaching customer satisfaction and selling faulty goods.
