logo

Liability of Fun Parks Adventureland under Negligence Principles

On 10 April 2017 Jack and Melissa, a married couple, are at Fun Parks Adventureland with Melissa’s brother Ken. Ken works for Fun Parks as a gardener keeping the parks grasslands and flowerbeds looking pristine for the park guests. Ken has been given 2 days off and 3 free passes for his hard work. He asked Jack and Melissa to join him for a day of ‘fun and adventure’ at Fun Parks Adventureland. Jack, Melissa and Ken meet at the park gates at 10am. Ken hands the cashier the 3 free passes and the cashier hands him their tickets and wishes them a good day. Behind the cashier on the wall and immediately after the entrance gate are signs outlining the Conditions of Entry (extracted below). The cashier does not draw these to customer’s attention but the signs are clearly visible and each ticket refers the entrant to the Conditions of Entry stating ‘the customer by accepting this ticket of entry accepts the Conditions of Entry to Fun Parks Adventureland’. Jack, Melissa and Ken are having a great day, before lunch they have gone on 6 water rides and taken numerous

5 Pages1293 Words5 Views
   

Added on  2022-12-20

About This Document

The article discusses the liability of Fun Parks Adventureland under negligence principles for the losses suffered by Ken. It explains the requisites for establishing negligence, the validity of exclusion clauses, and applies these principles to the case. The conclusion states that Fun Parks Adventureland is liable for the losses suffered by Ken.

Liability of Fun Parks Adventureland under Negligence Principles

On 10 April 2017 Jack and Melissa, a married couple, are at Fun Parks Adventureland with Melissa’s brother Ken. Ken works for Fun Parks as a gardener keeping the parks grasslands and flowerbeds looking pristine for the park guests. Ken has been given 2 days off and 3 free passes for his hard work. He asked Jack and Melissa to join him for a day of ‘fun and adventure’ at Fun Parks Adventureland. Jack, Melissa and Ken meet at the park gates at 10am. Ken hands the cashier the 3 free passes and the cashier hands him their tickets and wishes them a good day. Behind the cashier on the wall and immediately after the entrance gate are signs outlining the Conditions of Entry (extracted below). The cashier does not draw these to customer’s attention but the signs are clearly visible and each ticket refers the entrant to the Conditions of Entry stating ‘the customer by accepting this ticket of entry accepts the Conditions of Entry to Fun Parks Adventureland’. Jack, Melissa and Ken are having a great day, before lunch they have gone on 6 water rides and taken numerous

   Added on 2022-12-20

ShareRelated Documents
Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
Liability of Fun Parks Adventureland under Negligence Principles_1
Issue
The issue in the present case is whether Fun Parks Adventureland is liable under
negligence principles for the losses suffered by Ken.
Rule
Negligence depicts the failure in exercising a duty of care that a person has incurred under
specific circumstances, which has eventually caused injury to another person. This confers
the person aggrieved with an entitlement to claim damages from the person failing to
exercising his duties. To sum up, there are three requisites that are required to be establish in
relation to an action that has caused injury to bring it under the purview of negligence.
Firstly, the person whose actions are alleged to have been negligent are required to duty
pertaining to him with respect to the exercise of care. The same can be illustrated with the
case of Jaensch v Coffey [1984] 155 CLR 549, 1.1211. In this context it can be stated that the
duty of care needs to be analysed based on the threefold test that has evolved with the case of
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 22. This threefold test includes reasonable
foreseeability, a proximate relationship among the negligent person and the aggrieved.
Secondly, the duty that has been evident is needs to be breached by the person. The same can
be illustrated with the case of Doubleday v Kelly [2005] NSWCA 1513. Thirdly, the breach of
that duty must have caused an injury to another person. This can be illustrated with the case
of Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 8504.
Exclusion clause when included within a contract restricts the liability of a party to the
contract with respect to any breach under the contract. Any such clause would be enforceable
if the same is not unreasonable or unfair. The same can be illustrated with the case of Photo
Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 8275. The courts, in the case of Canada
1 Jaensch v Coffey [1984] 155 CLR 549, 1.121
2 Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
3 Doubleday v Kelly [2005] NSWCA 151
4 Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850
5 Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
Liability of Fun Parks Adventureland under Negligence Principles_2

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Commercial Law
|7
|1903
|140

Establishing Negligence in a Business Law Case
|7
|1709
|80

Negligence and Vicarious Liability in Commercial Law
|12
|3479
|2

Case Study: Jack's Right to Bring a Claim Against Maeve
|7
|1773
|57

Commercial Law
|7
|1752
|141

Will Your Contract Be Enforced Under the Law?
|12
|891
|15