BL Writing task Unit4 Neligence tennis ball PDF

Preview

Summary

Download BL Writing task Unit4 Neligence tennis ball PDF

Description

Given name:

Yihui

Surname:

Luo

Preferred name:

Ethan

Tutorial group:

AC6

GRADE:

Foundation Studies

Business Law Writing Task (Unit 4) Mr Lee is an accountant. During his lunch break he was walking along Queen Street on his way to meet his friend, Mrs Smith. A tennis ball hit Mr Lee’s face, causing his glasses to break and deeply cut the area between his left eye and nose. He was taken to hospital and later, had to have special surgery on his face to mend the cut without scarring. Investigations found that the tennis ball came from a roof top tennis court owned, controlled and managed by City Hotel, which is located on the corner of Queen and Castle Streets. Two guests had been playing tennis and one hit the ball over the five-metre fence that surrounded the court. There had been many reports made to the City Hotel of tennis balls being hit outside the tennis court. Mr Lee claims that the tennis court should have been enclosed with a net which is relatively cheap and easy to install. Mr Lee claims that City Hotel was negligent in allowing the accident to occur. Discuss Mr Lee’s case in terms of all the elements he needs to establish to be successful in a negligence action against City Hotel. In your answer, you must consider and apply any relevant statutory provisions and decisions from any relevant cases you have studied.

Tort of negligence involves of four essential elements which are duty of care, breach duty of care, causation, and remoteness. In order to be successful in negligence action, all four terms must be reached. The negligence action can be defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or doing something which a reasonable person would not do. The issue of this question is whether or not Mr Lee can establish to be successful in a negligence action against City Hotel.

Firstly, the defendant must owe a duty of take reasonable care of plaintiff. The neighbor principle would be used to determine whether defendant owed a duty to take care of plaintiff. According to Donoghue V Stevenson case, Donoghue is a customer and Stevenson is a manufacturer. There is a neighbor relationship between these two parties. Donoghue became ill after drinking the beer as there is a snail in the bottle. Hence, it can be said Stevenson owed a duty to take care of Donoghue. From this case, Mr Lee is a pedestrian and City Hotel is the owner of the tennis court. It can be said there is neighbor relationship between these two parties. Secondly, breach duty of care can be defined defendant does not to take care of plaintiff. The court would use section 5B1) to determine whether a person is negligent to take precaution against the risk of harm. Firstly, the risk was foreseeable. In this case, it can be predicted that the UNSW Foundation Studies Business Law

Writing Task (Unit 4)

risk was foreseeable as there had been many reports made to the City Hotel of tennis balls being hit outside the tennis court. Hence, the risk was foreseeable. Then, it comes with the risk was not insignificant. In this scenario, the pedestrian is easy to suffer damage as the risk is very significant due to the many reports. Next, section 5B 1 c) refers to a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken those precautions. To further prove the section 5b 1 c), the section 5b 2) would be used by court to determine whether a reasonable person would take precaution against the risk of harm. Firstly, s5b 2)a) the probability that the harm if the care was not taken. According to the Bolton v Stone’s case, the Stone head is struck by the cricket ball, however, the probability of this kind of thing occurred is very low which indicates a reasonable personal would not do further precaution against of it. However, in this case, the probability for Lee to suffer injury is much higher as there had been many reports on the ball over the fence and hit outside the court. Then, s5b 2)b), the seriousness of harm. According to Paris v Stepney Borough Council, Paris has only one good eye and becomes totally blind as the employers does not provide safety goggle at the work time. Paris suffered a serious harm. In this scenario, Mr Lee suffered a injury on his face and it needs to mend the cut without scarring. It means the harm he suffered is serious and precaution should be done by City Hotel. Hence, a reasonable person in City Hotel position would do further precaution. Next, the section s5b 2)c), the burden or taking precaution. As it says, the tennis court should have been enclosed with a net which is relatively cheap and easy to install which means the burden of taking precaution is very low. Hence, City Hotel should do precaution against the accident as the cost is low. Lastly, the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm are not relevant in this scenario. Hence, it can be said City Hotel breaches the duty to take care of Mr Lee. Then, the causation is the plaintiff suffered loss, damage or injury that was caused by the breach. The breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of harm. The S5D 1a) states that the negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of harm. Through using the “but for test”, from this case, Mr Lee would not suffer injury if City Hotel did not breach his duty of care. Hence, the causation can be established in this scenario. The last one is remoteness, and it refers to the loss, damage or injury was not too remotes. The defendant will not be liable for damage that the court considered to be remotes. The section 5 D 1b) that it is appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused. Through using the foreseeability test, a reasonable person can foresee that Mr Lee would suffer injury. Hence, remoteness can also establish.

In conclusion, Mr Lee can be successfully establish negligence action against City Hotel s as all the elements have been satisfied.

UNSW Foundation Studies Business Law

Writing Task (Unit 4)

UNSW Foundation Studies Business Law

Writing Task (Unit 4)

UNSW Foundation Studies Business Law

Writing Task (Unit 4)

UNSW Foundation Studies Business Law

Writing Task (Unit 4)

I

Never

Occasionally

Sometimes

Mostly

Using the IPAC method to solve a legal problem

Always

Writing Task Feedback

Identify the relevant legal issue/s. Explain the relevant legal principles.

P

Identify the legislation provisions associated with the relevant legal principles. Identify the case law associated with the relevant legal principles. Explain what the legal principles mean to the given facts.

A

Structure

C

Explain the effect of legal principles have on the rights and obligations of the parties. Consider the merits of one party’s case and also consider the arguments of the other side. Arrive at a conclusion with legal reasoning. Present answer using the IPAC method accurately to make distinct and logical legal arguments. Organise materials into a coherent structure, including appropriate paragraphs, accurate spelling, clear sentence construction and punctuation.

Tutor’s comments and suggestions (optional):

UNSW Foundation Studies Business Law

Writing Task (Unit 4)...