Law of Torts: Case Study on Wendy's Theme Park and Liability Issues

This case study analyzes a Law of Torts scenario involving Wendy, who builds a theme park. The case examines two main issues: the collapse of the 'Beach Shack' roof due to Storm Dennis and the subsequent water damage, and the injury of a trespasser, Lionel, who fell into a disused well. The assignment explores the potential claims against Manu & Sons for the construction defects and Wendy's liability towards Lionel under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. It discusses the relevant legal principles, including the Limitation Act 1980, the Latent Damage Act 1986, and the duty of care owed by occupiers. The analysis considers whether Wendy can make claims for damages against the construction company and the time Lionel has to bring a claim against Wendy. The document also includes a bibliography of relevant cases, legislations and books.

Running head: LAW OF TORTS
Law of Torts
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

2LAW OF TORTS
Table of Contents
Advice 1.....................................................................................................................................3
Advice 2.....................................................................................................................................4
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................7

3LAW OF TORTS
Advice 1
Issue
To determine whether Wendy could make claims against Manu & Sons for the water
damage.
Rule
Under the law of torts, a person or a company enters into an agreement with an
independent contractor in order to carry out a given task. In this regard, it is expected that the
independent contractor would carry out the task that has been assigned to him and that such
task would be free of negligence1. In case of construction work, it is expected that the
constructed structure by the contractor would sustain for a significant amount of time, which
is normal for a structure to stand strong, unless it falls within the exception of a natural
calamity.
In case of a tort of negligence, a claimant can bring charges under the Limitation Act
1980 and the Latent Damage Act 1986. The Limitation Act allows a claimant to bring action
under the breach of contract and a violation of law of tort while the Latent Damage Act
allows to bring actions for latent damage in the constructed property like certain error in the
design or workmanship or defect in the building material. The limitation period for bringing
an action for such cases is 6 years from the date of damage or 3 years from the date when the
claimant knew about the damage2.
Application
1 Morgan, Jonathan. "Liability for Independent Contractors in Contract and Tort: Duties to Ensure that Care is
Taken." The Cambridge Law Journal 74.1 (2015): 109-139.
2 Limitation Act 1980, s 14A

4LAW OF TORTS
In the given case, the roof of the ‘Beach Shack’ at the theme park, constructed by
Manu & Sons collapsed after Storm Dennis. It was not long enough that the theme park was
constructed, which made Wendy sceptical about the quality of construction work executed by
Manu & Sons. The roof of the Beach Shack restaurant was only a few month old, which is
expected to have withstand the torment of the storm.
Even though the construction had started 2 years back, yet it was completed a few
months ago and the damage to the roof occurred in February 2020 during the storm.
Therefore, the matter falls within the limitation period to bring action against Manu & Sons
for latent damage in construction work. However, it could be countered by the construction
company that the damage to the roof was a result of the natural calamity. In this case, the
claimant needs to establish the time of the completion of the construction work, which is too
little a time for the roof to collapse.
Conclusion
Therefore, Wendy could make claims against Manu & Sons for the water damage
Advice 2
Issue
1) To determine the liability that Wendy has towards Lionel.
2) To determine the time that Lionel has to bring a claim against Wendy in the course of
his accident that occurred on 17th February 2020.
Rule
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 makes an occupier liable for the safety of person
other than the authorised visitors3. In the case of British Railways Board v Herrington, the
3 Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, s 1(a)

5LAW OF TORTS
occupiers’ liability towards trespasser was recognised for the first time4. It therefore gives
protection to visitors who exceeds their authorisation and becomes a trespasser, including any
person who trespass with criminal intent or a minor who enters into a premise without
plausible understanding of the adverse consequence. The duty of care of the occupier exists
when he has the constructive knowledge of the existence of the danger or risk that might
harm a person entering into such premise5.
As per the Limitation Act 1980, a person who has suffered personal injury has the
liberty to bring charges for a time frame of 3 years from the date of the occurrence of the
injury or from the date on which the injury was acknowledged by the claimant6.
Application
In this case, Lionel, one of the students who trespassed the theme park fell into a
disused well and broke his leg. Here, Wendy, the owner of the theme park holds a duty of
care towards the trespassers, and therefore should have taken measures regarding the disused
wells. The Wendy, the owner and the occupier of the premise is expected to foresee the
probable danger or risk that the disused wells pose towards the people entering into the theme
park, with or without authorisation. Wendy should have taken sufficient precaution to prevent
the accident from occurring. In failing to execute her duty of care, she shall be held liable for
Lionel’s injury.
Lionel shall have a time period of 3 years to claim compensation from Wendy.
Conclusion
4 British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
5 White v The Council of the City and District of St. Albans [1990] EWCA Civ18
6 Limitation Act 1980, s 11(4)

6LAW OF TORTS
Therefore, Wendy shall be liable to Lionel for not executing her duty of carer as the
occupier of the theme park and Lionel shall be entitled to bring claim against Wendy for a
period of 3 years from the date of occurrence of the accident.

7LAW OF TORTS
Bibliography
List of Cases
British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
White v The Council of the City and District of St. Albans [1990] EWCA Civ 18
List of Legislations
Latent Damage Act 1986
Limitation Act 1980
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
Books/Journals
Morgan, Jonathan. "Liability for Independent Contractors in Contract and Tort: Duties to
Ensure that Care is Taken." The Cambridge Law Journal 74.1 (2015): 109-139.