ould not disclose, and which, considering the nature of the premises, the occasion of the leave and license, and the circumstances generally, a reasonable man would have been misled into failing to anticipate or suspect" (BOULTON, Mark, 1988:57-58)
             It is evident that Jay owed a duty of care to C.D Wright because of their legal position in the circumstances, as Jay invited Wright to the party. This shows that there was physical proximity involved. This is in the sense of space and time between the person or property of the plaintiff (C.D Wright) and the person or property of the defendant (Jays property). Being that the plaintiff is in proximity of the defendant, the second element of duty of care can be applied. The foreseeability principle says "that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected". In this case, considering the conditions, a reasonable person would have been able to foresee the results of his or her actions. Therefore injury caused by the dangers Jay was aware of could have been prevented.
             The duty of care Jay owed to C.D Wright was breached as a result of the irresponsible and ignorant actions he took. It was his responsibility to fix or make the hole visible, as he was vicariously liable for his dogs' actions. A reasonable person should take responsible action to prevent an accident from happening, especially in this case, as the accident was foreseeable due to lack of lighting. This gives Jay a fair medium standard of care, as the circumstances aren't exactly extreme but should have been looked after more appropriately.
             It is clear that in this case Jay is guilty of negligence. This is based on the facts that as a result of C/D Wrights fall, she has since suffered economic and physical loss. This had a direct link to causation as a result of Jay's omission to fix the role. The presence of causation was established with use of the 'but for' test.
             ...