Arc Is Negligent

The main legal issue in this question is whether ARC is negligent.

There are 4 required elements to prove that ARC is negligent.

I. Duty of care of physical injury:

The rule applies here is the neighbor test in the case "Donoghue v. Stevenson" that a manufacturer owe a duty of care to its customer to use a reasonable care to make sure it products are reasonably safe. Applying that rule to the fact of this question, ARC owns the stairs which were painted with bright yellow paint and become very slippery when they are wet. It is reasonably foreseeable that if a manufacturer (like ARC) does not keep their station safe and lets the stairs become very slippery, the type of people who might be injured are the customers (like Thuy).

Another rule applies here is the recognized duty of care of owner of property in the case Australian Safeway v. Zaluzna that grocery store failed to act to clean the floors was reasonably foreseeable. Grocery store has control over whether its floor is slippery. Safeway owes Zaluzna a duty to take reasonable care and to avoid reasonably foreseeable risk to him. Applying that rule to the fact of this question, ARC has control over the stairs which were painted in bright yellow paint and become very slippery when they are wet. Thuy slipped on the wet stairs and broke her leg. ARC has the control over whether it stairs is slippery and ARC's failure to act to dry the stairs was reasonably foreseeable.

Conclusion, ARC owes Thuy a duty of care.

II. Breach of duty of care:

The main legal issue is whether the defendant met the required standard of care.

The rule of law is that the required standard of care is whatever a reasonable, ordinary, careful person should have done in the same circumstances.

Romeo factors (Romeo v. Conversation Commission):

1. Magnitude of the risk:

The worst possible risk that could have happened is death. Because the passenger can run on the wet stairs, slip and hit their head on the stairs and die. Death is a bigger risk so that higher standard of care is required.

2. Probability of harm:

The probability is high because many passengers can be late for the train so that they have to be hurry and run on the wet stairs so that they can easily slip and get injured. The higher likely means higher standard of care is required.

3. Easy/difficult, cheap/expensive:

It is very easy and cheap to eliminate the risk. The defendant can put a clearly visible warning signs that the stairs are very slippery when they are wet or they can use another kind of paint which doesn't become slippery when it is wet. That is easy and cheap to do so that higher standard of care is required.

4. Other conflicting priority:

They have no other