Ama Mensah’s claim against Asante Confectionery Ltd falls under the tort of negligence, which requires establishing a duty of care, breach of that duty, and resulting damage.

1. Duty of Care: As an employer, Asante Confectionery Ltd owes a duty of care to ensure a safe working environment for its employees, including Ama Mensah, under common law and potentially the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651).
2. Breach of Duty: The management took reasonable steps by sprinkling sawdust to prevent slippage, indicating an attempt to fulfill their duty. However, leaving a small patch uncovered may constitute a breach, as a reasonable employer would ensure all hazardous areas are addressed, especially in a workplace with known risks post-flooding.
3. Damage: Ama Mensah suffered an injury due to slipping on the uncovered patch, satisfying the requirement of damage.
4. Causation and Remoteness: The uncovered patch directly caused Ama Mensah’s injury, and the harm was foreseeable, as slipping on a wet floor is a likely consequence of failing to cover all areas.

However, the court may consider contributory negligence. As a pregnant employee, Ama Mensah might have been expected to exercise extra caution. If she failed to notice or avoid the uncovered patch, her claim could be reduced proportionally.

Additionally, under the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), Section 9, employers must provide a safe workplace, and failure to do so strengthens Ama Mensah’s claim. The case of Korley v State Construction Corporation supports the employer’s duty to provide a safe environment.

Conclusion: Ama Mensah has a viable claim for damages against Asante Confectionery Ltd for negligence, as the uncovered patch likely breached the duty of care, causing her injury. However, her award may be reduced if contributory negligence is established. She could claim general damages (for pain and suffering) and special damages (e.g., medical expenses), subject to proof.