Legal Principles and Application in Workplace Safety, Exclusion Clauses, and Negligence

This document explores the legal principles and application in workplace safety, exclusion clauses, and negligence. It covers topics such as the responsibilities of employers in ensuring workplace safety, the enforceability of exclusion clauses, and the elements of negligence. The document includes case studies and relevant case laws to provide a comprehensive understanding of these legal concepts.

1
Title page
Name of the student
Student ID
Word count

2

3
Contents
Solution 1....................................................................................................................................................3
a).............................................................................................................................................................3
b).............................................................................................................................................................3
c).............................................................................................................................................................3
Solution 2....................................................................................................................................................3
A..................................................................................................................................................................3
Area of law..............................................................................................................................................3
Principle of law.......................................................................................................................................3
Application of law to the facts of the case..............................................................................................3
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................4
B..................................................................................................................................................................4
Area of law..............................................................................................................................................4
Principle of law.......................................................................................................................................4
Application of law to the facts of the case...............................................................................................4
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................4
Solution 3....................................................................................................................................................4
Area of law..............................................................................................................................................4
Principle of Law......................................................................................................................................5
Application of law to the facts of the case...............................................................................................5
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................6
Reference List.............................................................................................................................................7

4
Solution 1
a)
Every employer who has control over the workplace where the employees work has the legal
responsibly to make sure that the workplace is not hazardous in nature is rightly evaluated in
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]. The concept was rightly evaluated in Australia in
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) It is the legal duty of the employer to make sure
that he must provide the environment of such nature so that no harm is caused and if harm is
caused because of the non compliance of the lea duty by the employer then the employer is held
to be negligent in his actions. (Latimer, 2012)
b)
An exclusion clause limits or excludes the liability of one party on the occurrence of a contingent
event. The principle function of an exclusion clause is that it brings a cap on the liability of a
person who is relying upon the clause with the consent of the other party (Darlington Futures
Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986). (Gray, 2018)
c)
The employers has the responsibly to gave workers' compensation claim to employee with 24
hours of serving of notice of on-the-job injury or work-related illness. Even if no notice is
provided and the employer I aware of the injury them also the claim must be provided.
(Delpo,2018)
Solution 2
A
Area of law
The law of exclusion clause in ticket cases
Principle of law
Principle of exclusion Clause
An exclusion clause limits or excludes the liability of one party on the occurrence of a contingent
event
Enforceability of contract
 Parker v.The South Eastern Railway Co (1877) – The clause is valid even if the party
fails to read. (Burrows, 2016, p83)
One party relying on the clause
 Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] - If only one part
is relying on the clause, then, it is his responsibility to bring the clause within the
knowledge of the other party with reasonable means. (Burrows, 2016, p83)
Application of law to the facts of the case
The law is applied to the facts of the case and an issue is resolved as to whether the exclusion
clause is part of the contract amid Abel and the tour operator?
It is assumed that there exist a valid contract amid Abel and the tour operator.

5
Abel booked a trip to France through internet and before the ticket is received by him, he already
paid the money. One of the terms on the ticket is that the package is not suitable for people with
height 1.83m. Exclusion is made which submits that if any person greater than 1.83 m choose to
opt the package then the tour operator will not be liable for any loss caused because of the said
reason.
Now, Abel is 1.95m high but has choose to take the tour as the said term was not within his
knowledge when the money was paid and a contract was made. He suffered injuries as he was hit
by one of the wine cellers.
It is submitted that the exclusion clause was not within the knowledge of Abel when the contract
was concluded. Thus if the tour operator was relying on the clause then it is his duty to bring the
said clause in the knowledge of Abel in order to make it enforceable.
Since, the clause was not reasonably bought within the knowledge of Abel, so, the clause is not
enforceable.
Conclusion
To conclude the tour operator cannot be held liable to enforce the said clause as the clause was
not within the knowledge of Abel when the contact was concluded.
B
Area of law
The law of exclusion clause in ticket cases
Principle of law
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] - A clause is enforceable when made part of the
contract before the contract is concluded.
Application of law to the facts of the case
The law is applied to the facts of the case and an issue is resolved as to whether there is change
in the decision if the clause was already part of the ticket?
If the tour was taken by Abel through an operator with whom he had already travelled and the
clause as usual part of the ticket, then, the clause would have been enforceable as Abel was
aware of the presence of the said clause in the ticket and thus he had the knowledge of the same.
Conclusion
To conclude if the clause was already part of the ticket, then the clause was fully enforceable.

6
Solution 3
Area of law
The tort of Negligence
Principle of Law
 Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) (the ginger bottle case) - Lord Atkin has emphasized that
manufacturer of every product is liable for the losses/injuries caused by his
actions/inactions to the plaintiff provided the plaintiff is his neighbor. Latimer – 4-080.
 Legal duty of care – Legal duty against those plaintiffs who are
 reasonably foreseeable
 Proximate relationship
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) – reasonable reliance
must be present. Latimer – 4-080
 Breach of duty of care - The standard of care that is expected from the defendant is not
met
 Cole V South Tweed Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) – higher the degree
of harm results higher duty of care on the part of the defendant. Latimer – 4-090
 Damage - Because of the breach, there is loss caused to the plaintiff.
 Causation
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] – the loss caused to the plaintiff must
be because of defendants acts. Defendant is not liable for plaintiff standing
remotely.
 Remoteness
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons (a firm) [1995] - No manufacturer
will be liable for the losses which are too remote to anticipate.
Application of law to the facts of the case
The law is applied to analyze whether Sonia has any legal rights in regard to the tragic death of
her husband?
Lotsa puff Pty Ltd bought 3 airships from Airworks Pty ltd (manufacturer). The airships are
bought to be used for on sightseeing rides and to aerial television shots. The airship contained the
pilot, a television camera operator and David (a former test cricketer).
Now, the manufacturer of the ship (Airworks) is aware that the airships will be used for flying
purposes and there will be people sitting in the plane. So, there is a duty that exists against all
persons who are part of the plane as such peoples are reasonably anticipated and are neighbors of
Airworks. It is their duty that the plane must be fit for the use it was meant.
But, this legal duty was violated as there was a design defect in the plane which was incurred by
the manufacturer company. The level of care that was expected is not met.
Because of the breach, the airplane crashed and all the three people on the plane dies. Now, the
loss that is caused is because of the breach on the part of Airworks and such loss was reasonably
anticipated by the Airworks.

7
But, the crash was live telecasted and the same was seen by the wife of David. She suffered with
shock. However, the loss that is caused was too remote to be predicted and Sonia was in
proximate relationship with the Airworks.
Thus, due to lack of the element of proximity and remoteness of damage, Airworks is not liable
to Sonia.
Conclusion
To conclude, Sonia cannot sue Airworks as she is not the neighbor nor the loss caused is because
of the breach on the part of the Airworks. The loss caused to her was too remote.

8
Reference List
Books/Articles/Journals
Burrows, A. 2016. A Restatement of the English Law of Contract. Oxford University Press.
Gray, A. (2018). Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform.
Latimer, P. (2012). Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited.
Plunkett, J 2018, The Duty of Care in Negligence, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Case laws
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons (a firm) [1995] CA.
Cole V South Tweed Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004).
Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989].
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] UKHL 3.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] 248 NY 339
Parker v.The South Eastern Railway Co (1877);
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman HCA 4 Jul 1985
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460
Online Material
Delpo. (2018). Workers' Compensation Basics for Employers. Retrieved from
<https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workers-compensation-basics-employers-
30333.html>.