加拿大留学体检：间接伤害
加拿大留学体检：间接伤害
在Foodmart的水果货架上发生了一次溢水事件，该公司按照风险管理报告中规定的程序对这种情况进行了处理。其中一名员工承担了责任，但没能找到水桶和拖把。于是她开始用毛巾擦干地板。她甚至忘了贴警示牌，所以其中的一个顾客，Eric跌倒了。由于摔倒，埃里克伤了背，随后又交了1500美元的医药费。由于受了严重的伤害，他无法赶上飞往悉尼的航班。他需要再投资550美元购买另一个航班的机票。关键问题在于埃里克是否会在食品超市和加布里埃尔的过失侵权案件中胜诉，以及埃里克在该权利下可以要求的所有损害赔偿。此外，根据食品市场所遵循的标准程序，需要对警示标志和毛巾的责任进行讨论。任何欢迎顾客的商店都有责任确保他们的安全合理。任何不合理的状态都可能导致对故事的伤害。大多数零售商店在为顾客提供一个安全的环境的同时运转良好(Brant, 2007)。零售商店有责任确保商店的环境对顾客来说是尽可能安全和无危险的。
加拿大留学体检：间接伤害
正如职业安全与健康管理局(OSHA)所提到的，在客户发生的10起事故中，有9起事故最终以某种形式或其他形式形成了疏忽。零售商店的疏忽不仅影响到顾客，也影响到企业。注意义务可以被认为是不当损害的合法保护(Bates, 2008)。这就意味着，零售企业应该尽一切合理的可能，确保客户的安全不受可能导致伤害的危险情况的影响。在考虑顾客伤害的危险情况时，往往会涉及到一些疏忽。法律上认为，过失是零售商店的注意义务，可能与违反或违反有关。这一违反行为最终使零售商对顾客的损失承担责任。损害包括治疗和医药费，工资损失，医疗费用，顾客的痛苦和痛苦(Brant, 2007)。在这种背景下，证明的法律责任落在顾客身上，因此，证明零售商的疏忽是顾客的责任。此外，重要的是要证明这一疏忽是造成他受伤的直接原因。在房屋责任的法律条文内，必须使用湿地标志，以避免因湿地而引起的任何事故。如果员工或管理部门存在疏忽，则零售商店将对损失的发生承担可能的责任(Pawlowski, 2007)。
加拿大留学体检：间接伤害
There had been a water spill across the fruit aisle of Foodmart and the company follows certain procedures for this scenario as specified in the report of risk management. One of the employees took up the responsibility, but was not able to find a bucket and a mop. And hence she started to dry up the floor by the use of cotton towels. She even forgot putting up the signs of warning, and hence one of the customers, Eric ended up falling. As a result of the fall, Eric hurt his back followed by a medical bill of 1,500 dollars. Due to the severe injuries caused, he could not make it to the flight to Sydney he had to catch. He will have to make an additional investment of 550 dollars for purchasing ticket of another flight. The key issue lies in whether or not Eric will be winning a case against Foodmart and Gabriele in negligence, and what all damages can be claimed by Eric under this entitlement. Further ahead, discussion is required for the responsibility of warning signs and towels as per the standard procedure followed by Foodmart. Any store welcoming customers holds the duty of ensuring their safety reasonable. Any unreasonable state contributing to a fall may result in the claim of injury against the story. Majority of the retail stores are run well-enough while providing a safe environment for the customers (Brant, 2007). Retail stores have the responsibility to ensuring that the environment of stores is as safe and free of hazards as possible for the customer.
加拿大留学体检：间接伤害
As mentioned by OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration), out of ten accidents of customer, nine accidents end up forming negligence out of some form or the other. Negligence of retail store affects the business as well as the customer. Duty of Care can be considered as a lawful protection in terms of undue harm (Bates, 2008). This means that the retail business should be putting in every reasonable possibility for ensuring the safety of customer from risky conditions which may lead towards injuries. When considering the dangerous condition in context with the injury of customer, there is more often some negligence involved. It has been considered in law that negligence is the duty of care of retail store, and can be related with violation or breach. The violation ends up making this the liability of retailer for the damages of customer. Damages can be inclusive of therapy and medical bills, loss of wages, out- of- pocket costs for medicinal purpose, and the suffering and pain of the customer (Brant, 2007). In this context, the legal burden of proof is over the customers, according to which, it is the responsibility of the customer for proving the negligence of retailer. Also, it is important to prove that this negligence had been the proximate and direct cause for the occurrence of his injuries. Within the legal doctrine for liability of premises, the use of wet floor signs is mandatory for avoiding the any accident due to wet floor. If there is negligence from the employees or the management authorities, then the retail store will hold the probable liability for the occurrence of damages (Pawlowski, 2007).
