Commercial Law Assignment (Solved)
13 Pages3420 Words121 Views
Added on 2020-05-16
Commercial Law Assignment (Solved)
Added on 2020-05-16
ShareRelated Documents
2Commercial LawPart AIssueThe main issue of this case is related to the possibility of claims of negligence being made by P against the player, local council which owned the football ground, football club, and/or coach. RuleNegligence is denoted as the breach of the duty of care resulting in injury or harm being caused to the party to which this duty of care had been owed (Bailey, 2016). In such instances where an individual is deemed as negligent, monetary compensation can be claimed upon by the injured party. For establishing a case of negligence, there is a need to show the presence of certain elements which include duty of care, breach of it, damages resulting from the breach, foreseeability, remoteness, proximity and direct causation (Gibson & Fraser, 2014). The first step is to show duty of care being owed. In this regard, the case holding utmost significance is Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 (Abbott, Pendlebury & Wardman, 2007). In this case, there was a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant, anddirect causation of the sickness of Donoghue owing to dead snail in bottle manufactured by Stevenson, leading to presence of duty of care (Latimer, 2012).The proximity of the parties is thus an important concept in this regard. When it comes tothe sporting tournaments, this duty is raised amongst the coach to competitors, competitors to spectators, and competitors to competitors (Davies, 2012). For a claim of negligence, the
3Commercial Lawdamages cannot be too remote (Martin & Lancer, 2013). In order to award the damages, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 put forth a test, whereby it has to be shown that the injuries would not have been caused where the duty of care had not been breached (Strong & Williams, 2011). An important aspect is the foreseeability of losses. Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 is helpful in this context. This case had the cricket club being sued for negligence by the plaintiff who had been hit by the cricket ball when she was outside her house. Though, the risk of harm was not deemed as foreseeable here by the court (E-Law Resources, 2018). A duty of care is owed by the competitors in sports to spectators. Cleghorn v Oldham (1927) 43 TLR 465 providesthat a risk of accident was not assumed by the spectator. Langham v Connell Point Rovers Soccer Club [2005] NSWCA 461 made the organizers and occupiers owe a duty of care to the spectators, which led to damages of $233,758 being awarded to spectator (Davies, 2012). The principle of vicarious liability makes the employer liable for the work undertaken by their employees (Giliker, 2010). McCracken v Melbourne Storm [2005] NSWCA 107 saw the club being made liable for the injuries which the player sustained owing to the illegal tackle of the other player (Davies, 2012). ApplicationThe case study given here shows that for holding the different parties liable, there is a need to establish the presence of negligence. Based on Donoghue v Stevenson, the duty of care would be owed in this case based on proximity between the parties. Here, there was proximity between P and the four defendant groups since the acts of these defendants could impact P in an easy manner. P’s glasses got broke and this can be deemed as an economic loss in this case
4Commercial Lawwhich can give P the right of claiming damages for his injuries and for this economic loss. Basedon Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, these injuries would not have been caused to P, had the requisite care been undertaken by the defendant groups towards P. An issue can be raised here by the player that he could not have foreseen in a reasonable manner that P would get hit and that based on Bolton v. Stone, the duty of care would not be owed by him. The player was not having the duty of installing the barricades in order to protect Pand the player could not have predicted for P to be harmed in this manner. This means that the player could not be held accountable. For the coach and the club, this would be the same case. This is because for holding the club liable, based on principle of vicarious liability, the player would have to be held liable as well. The coach did not owe a duty of care to spectator, owing to the absence of reasonable foreseeability. Based on the case given, the local council which was the owner of the football club is the party which can be held accountable for being negligent by not installing the requisite safety measures, which could have protected the consumers from getting injured. Based on Cleghorn v Oldham proves that being a spectator meant that P had not assumed the injury’s risk. Based on Langham v Connell Point Rovers Soccer Club, P would have to be compensated for his loss by the local council. Conclusion Thus, a thriving claim of negligence can be made by P only against the local council, but for the remaining three defendants, the same cannot be made owing to the lack of foreseeability.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Commercial Law BULAW5914 | Assignmentlg...
|14
|3553
|99
Commercial Law - volenti non fit injurialg...
|6
|1337
|343
Assignment on Commercial Lawslg...
|6
|1395
|79
Business Laws Solution Assignmentlg...
|8
|1777
|56
BUS107 Commercial Law | Assignmentlg...
|8
|1499
|462
Law Assignment | Commercial & Corporation Lawlg...
|6
|1401
|86