16 Pages
3913Words
Introduction Of Law Of Tort Assignment
Initial post
In the given case scenario, it can be seen that the incident that happened is due to lack of care and can be included under the law of occupier's liability act and here Jule should be considered an irresponsible one and the occupier is Mary here.
In this post, the act related to the occupier’s liability will be discussed and the consequences of the laws will be mentioned. According to the UK government, the occupier’s law is under the Occupiers liability act 19571. It is Jules's duty to everyone safe who is present in his pub whether they are trespassers or legal customers. It is also a matter of discussion how a child-like Parvindar got injured as no one was there to take care of him. The owner of the pub should be careful about how many guests in the parties can access all the premises.
In this post, I shall discuss the incidents that happened due to the negligence of Jule and the effect of the negligence are physical and psychological problems that hurt Oliver and Ruby. Additionally, it can be said that there are some secondary sources such as the law of the Commission 1998 which has the ability to analyze the current law's effectiveness in terms of lack of care2.
Finally in this post what Mary should do in the future so that she can neglect any bad situation like this. Particularly everyone has to be more careful as an individual and particularly they have to give more attention to the signs of warning and the exclusion causes of validity which is been used in the act of “Unfair contract term act “in the year of 1977 and in this way, the order of effectiveness can be identified3.
New Assignment Help is your one-stop destination for impeccable academic support. Our assignment writing help in the UK caters to diverse subjects and topics, guaranteeing thorough assistance for every student. Explore our Free Assignment Sample to kick-start your assignments with confidence.
Psychiatric harm (1st Post)
The scenario that has been illustrated mainly discusses that Mary suddenly found Parvindar in a pool and his hand was bleeding badly as unctuously he had hurt himself with a sharpened knife. Mary was unable to control herself as she suddenly found Parvindar who is a little boy like this. The doctor came to this situation as soon as possible and as per the report of the doctor Mary got affected by “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” and she was suffering from anxiety attacks and as well as nightmare since the time when she found Parvindar in a pool of blood4. PTSD is a serious disease that affects someone terribly. The person always goes through trauma and as a result, nightmares and flashbacks of that particularly terrible incident start affecting the patient again and again.
It can be considered that Mary was the secondary victim as she has a phycological disorder that is related to personal problems. Without any physical harm, it is difficult to prove a case in front of the court although the psychiatric harm should be considered as a serious matter. Mary was suffering from PTSD which is recognized as a serious psychological problem. Although Mary was suffering from two symptoms such as anxiety and nightmare, in the court only one disease PTSD will be considered in the claim as well.
Finally, it can be said that although the doctor suggested that Mary may be suffering from PTSD, it was not a proven fact. Some tests need to be conducted to get a particular report about Mary’s disease. There are some tests in medical science that can be conducted to be sure about this disease and they are the “Davidson Trauma Scale (DTS)”, “Post-traumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS)” and more options are available nowadays.
Psychiatric harm (2nd Post)
From the case study it has been noticed that Ruby shows Parminder in a pool of blood and also severe cuts on his arm by the knife. On the other hand, marry was unable to control herself, when she immediately found her son Parminder in the pool. He was mainly 4 years old. On the other hand, she claims that this experience has profound effects on mental health and anxiety attacks. According to the doctor's opinion, marry is affected by post turmeric stress disorder as a result, as soon as treatment is needed5. Post-traumatic stress is a serious illness, which mainly impacts
some of the people who are having shocking, scary and dangerous events. On the other hand, fear disorders mainly impact on the parts of the body of the people, it also helps them to avoid the responses of the potential danger. This post-traumatic stress also impacted the trauma disorder for increased a serious anxiety illness.
Besides that, marry impacted on the secondary victims when she was not in a physical danger herself6. This physical harm is mainly increased from the personal injury of the people. Boise that, through any physical harm of the claimant, the courts mainly assist in award of their compensation7. Further, without any physical harm it has been not too sure that, for proving the case in the court is the psychiatric harm, it has impacted on Mary in a severe way. On the other hand, marry mainly suffers from the two systems which are anxiety and the nightmare, where the court mainly analyzed the diseases of the PTSD which is maintained as the augments.
From the analysis of the doctor statement, it has been noticed that Ruby mainly impacted on the PTSD disorder. On The other hand, some of the tests mainly say that Rubby generally impacted on the PTSD disorder. Further some of the test foam the medical science that sure that, the disease which is impacted on Ruby's health as a PTSD scale new a day.
Pure Economic loss (1st Post)
In the case study, it can be seen that the family of Maryhas faced a lot of economic loss at the same time as physical and psychological loss. The family came there to enjoy a party but unfortunately, something wrong happened. At first, Oliver got hurt in the store room and unfortunately broke his hand. The treatment of that is going to be costly to the family and it is obvious that Oliver cannot do any work for a few days. These all are the result of the negligence of the pub owner and the family has to suffer. The child has also got injured due to a lack of attention and treatment for a child is pathetic as well as expensive.
In the post, I am going to discuss the law regarding pure economic loss and the law that is included under the act “Fatal Accident Act, 1976”8. The act states that if any accident happens due to the negligence of someone then that particular person who is responsible for the negligence has to pay compensation for the injured one. In this case, the family of Mary takes a chance if they can give the punishment for negligence to the owner of the pub.
At the time when Mary asked for compensation from the manager of the pub kettle and kitchen, the owner refused to give that and showed her the board which reads “mind your head” and also showed her the contract which has been signed by Mary herself. The contracts clearly read that the owner of the pub is not going to take any responsibility regarding any injury that happened to any of the guests. The situation is difficult as Maryhas signed herself on the paper that excluded the point of all liability for any injury.
Occupier’s liability: (1st Post)
In the context of the case, it can be seen that the name of the manager of the pub Kettle and Kitchen is Jules, and for a proper investigation of the case, it has been required to know who is the one responsible for negligence. The term occupier’s liability refers to a tort law that may concern the duty of the house owner or the real property owner towards the people who trespass or visit the place. An occupier has effective power and an occupier never needs to be the owner of premises9. The determination of occupiers does not depend on the person who is present in the premises. It is possible that the occupier can place the limitations to the extent, modify, restrict, or exclude the duty of his towards any visitors and can do this by giving a signature in an agreement. The occupier’s liability deals with such a kind of liability that can be raised due to the dangerous or defective condition of the premises10.
In the context of the given case scenario, it can be seen that the manager of the pub named Kettle, and the kitchen have taken over control of the whole pub and show some negligence in his work and towards the premises. As a result of the negligence some bad incidents have taken place in the pub and Jule cannot ignore his responsibility in the whole situation although Maryhas signed the contract by herself and the contract included the terms and conditions that the owner of the pub is not going to take any responsibility regarding the injury or harm of anyone. At last, from the above-mentioned points, it can be concluded that the premise of the given case is the bar named Kettle and Kitchen and the occupiers are the family of Mary.
Occupiers' Liability (2nd post)
According to the case study, Jules manages the kettle mainly investigating the case. Apart from that, for the proper investigation, it has always required to know who is managed the proper cases. On the other hand, the team occupies liability many refers to anyone with their effective control.
Apart from that, the occupier does not own off the premises. Moreover, the occupiers also have sufficient power to determine who mainly presents on the premises. Moreover, they have multiple occurrences of the same property. In this study the occupier is the person who mainly controls the land piece such as talents. On the other hand, the occupier’s liability mainly deals with the various kinds of liability which can be increased due to the serious condition of the premises as well as it has not to control over the premises.
In the case it has been seen that the pub manager and the kitchen, who mainly noticed that, were mainly negligent of their work. On the other hand, according to the suggestion of the given case study, the occurrence does not require those who mainly have preferences on the premises. Besides that, Julee does not ignore their responsibility in the present situation when the Marry has contracted their responsibility for how they handle their present situation. Apart from that, the pub manger kettle and the kitchen have simultaneously noticed that, the main problems have occurred when the injury of the harm on someone11.
From the scenario of this study the pub manager Kettles and Kitchen recumbents have not to control the restatements proprietor. As a rest, the negligence of some incidents had impacted on the pub place, so the Julee cannot be noted as their responsibility into their present situation. Moreover, from the present scenario the Kettles and Kitchen not to control the present negligence of Mary.
Legal Causation: first post
Legal Causation mainly refers to the relationship of effect and cause between one action or act and the result. Legal Causation can be considered as a process or act that can produce an effect12. In a personal injury case, one can establish legal causation, and the meaning of it is that nothing is enough to show that there was negligence. The first step that should be considered in this case after the occupier’s liability is that the negligence has been done from which side, the occupiers or the premises. From the above points I have supported Mary and in this also I am going to say in support of her.
The duty of care is the responsibility of the occupier who is going to be responsible for all the duties towards the visitors and the trespass of the place. It can be said that once the duty of a human being is established it has to be observed if the duty is going to be done by that person with responsibility or not. A breach of duty is not expected and it can be considered as a failure of the duty. Moreover, it can be said that if the occupier would have taken responsible steps, then some problems could be avoided. Such as Julee can give Mary precautions so that she can save herself from getting hurt. In the next point, it can be stated that in the kid section, there is a need that someone should be present to take care of the children, then maybe the bad incident can be ignored. Although this all point exists, the main point cannot be ignored that Mary has signed the contract herself with all the terms and conditions and that is the reason the claim may fail.
Legal Causation (2nd post)
From the terms of the legal, it has been examined that legal consumption mainly refers to the relationship of the causes and thorn effects which impacts on the action and their results. On the other hand, the two types of legal consumption which are medical legal causation and factual causation. On the other hand, in the present scenario, the occupier’s liability and negligence which is impacted on the Marry. Besides that, from the context of the time of the party, Oliver and their sons do not find out how they cut their arms. As a result, it has impacted the 4 years old baby Ravinder.
With the legal causation, the required proximity which is the legal cause and it is the primary issue of the understanding negligence. Apart from that, the occupier and the mail took their responsibility for mitigating their negligence issue. Moreover, Rubi mainly attends these senses and also examine that, how they mitigate their negligence which can be hurt to the sons of the Oliver, on the other hand, some of the other hand some of the children notice than cannot be take care their incidences. As a result, they mainly surfers with anxiety diseases. Moreover, the doctor has suggested that this post-traumatic stress disorder has also impacted to the Rubys own son. so, the Julee also given some of the preparation by they save their lives.
Defences
While applying for general defenses in an action in Tort Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 can be applied in this case specifically13. The contributory negligence refers to the statement that the claimant might have been somewhat negligible and responsible for their own condition and the percentage of negligence is then reduced from the damages.
In this case, Oliver, who fell down and broke his arm, can be said to be somewhat negligent of his drinking as he is said to have drunk a huge amount of alcohol. Moreover, while trying to find the bathrooms, he was negligent of the room he went to and accidentally entered a room that was marked private and was only allowed for the restaurant kitchen staff. The accident happened in a room where technically he was not allowed to enter or to be in14.
In the case of Rubi, who was the paramedic that attended to the injuries of the claimant, she can be said to be negligent of the doorway which resulted in her injury against the head. The doorway already had a sign that said “mind your head” as pointed out by Jules, the manager of Lifestyle Lesisure Limited. In the case of Parvinder, the 4-year-old boy, who had been left unsupervised and had cut his arm, could be linked to the negligence of the mother who was present at the scene but could not supervise the child when he cut his arm with the steak knife.
It can be argued that a lot of damages were incurred due to the negligence of the claimant on various parts of the injury incurred upon so many people. The management of Lifestyle Leisure Limited had no control of the amount of alcohol Oliver was drinking, which caused the entire chain of events.
Summary post
The Occupiers’ Liabilities Act 1957, talks about the liabilities of the occupier for the person entering the premises15. In this case, the occupier is Jules, who is the manager of Lifestyle Leisure Limited and Mary is the person who has claimed damages to his personal health and his family members. During the stay Mary and her family members have been injured on the premises. In this scenario, Oliver can be said to not have the strongest claim to the Law of Torts as he lost his way in his own negligence and broke his arm in an area of the restaurant that was not granted access to the outsiders and only for the members of the staff. It can be said that Rubi, who was the paramedic does not have a strong claim as she is responsible for her own health and seemed to neglect the sign on the entrance that said to mind the door. Parvinder’s injuries can be a successful claim as the pub is responsible for not keeping sharp objects near the children playing zone area and the subsequent trauma that Mary had to go through because of that can be used for their case.
This debate has been very enjoyable for me. I have got to learn a lot of perspectives which has urged me to do my own thorough research for the case study. This has helped me understand a broader view of the Torts law and how it can be implied in cases.
References
Ahrens, A., Beirne, K., Economides, P., Kostarakos, I., McQuinn, K. and O'Toole, C., 2020. A review of the methodologies used in compiling owner-occupiers' housing indices.
Bryant, R.A., 2019. Post?traumatic stress disorder: a state?of?the?art review of evidence and challenges. World psychiatry, 18(3), pp.259-269.
Fleming, J.G., 1967. The role of negligence in modern tort law. Virginia Law Review, pp.815-846.
Harding, R., 2021. Safeguarding freedom? Liberty Protection Safeguards, social justice and the rule of law. Current Legal Problems, 74(1), pp.329-359.
Kaman, R.K. and Sum, R.M., 2023. Potential Legal Risk During Crisis: A Case Study on A Private Hospital in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Law and Governance, 5(1), pp.17-30.
Lee, R. and Ng, N., 2022. A Tale of Two Common Law Systems: Robinson and Spandeck-Comparing the'Test'for Duties of Care in Singapore and England. Sing. Comp. L. Rev., p.134.
Legislation.gov.uk. Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, About us, Available on: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/8-9/28/contents [Accessed on 29.05.2023]
Payne, D., 1958. The Occupiers' Liability Act. The Modern Law Review, 21(4), pp.359-374.
Richmond-Rakerd, L.S., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Baldwin, J.R., Danese, A., Houts, R.M., Matthews, T., Wertz, J. and Moffitt, T.E., 2019. Adolescents who self-harm and commit violent crime: testing early-life predictors of dual harm in a longitudinal cohort study. American journal of psychiatry, 176(3), pp.186-195.
Rijnhout, R., 2021. Mothers of Srebrenica: causation and partial liability under Dutch tort law. Utrecht J. Int'l & Eur. L., 36, p.127.
Rijnhout, R., 2021. Mothers of Srebrenica: causation and partial liability under Dutch tort law. Utrecht J. Int'l & Eur. L., 36, p.127.
Russell, E.J., 2021. The assessment of non-financial losses in fatal injury cases. Scots Law Times.
Russell, E.J., 2022. Rising ramps: the liability of the occupier. Juridical Review, 1, pp.46-58.
Soh, J., 2020. Private liability for public health. Available at SSRN 3692130.
Whittaker, S., 2019. Unfair terms in commercial contracts and the two laws of competition: French law and english law contrasted. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(2), pp.404-434.
1 Payne, D., 1958. The Occupiers' Liability Act. The Modern Law Review, 21(4), pp.359-374.
2 Harding, R., 2021. Safeguarding freedom? Liberty Protection Safeguards, social justice and the rule of law. Current Legal Problems, 74(1), pp.329-359.
3 Whittaker, S., 2019. Unfair terms in commercial contracts and the two laws of competition: French law and english law contrasted. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(2), pp.404-434.
4 Bryant, R.A., 2019. Post?traumatic stress disorder: a state?of?the?art review of evidence and challenges. World psychiatry, 18(3), pp.259-269.
5 Kaman, R.K. and Sum, R.M., 2023. Potential Legal Risk During Crisis: A Case Study on A Private Hospital in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Law and Governance, 5(1), pp.17-30.
6 Soh, J., 2020. Private liability for public health. Available at SSRN 3692130.
7 Richmond-Rakerd, L.S., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Baldwin, J.R., Danese, A., Houts, R.M., Matthews, T., Wertz, J. and Moffitt, T.E., 2019. Adolescents who self-harm and commit violent crime: testing early-life predictors of dual harm in a longitudinal cohort study. American journal of psychiatry, 176(3), pp.186-195.
8 Russell, E.J., 2021. The assessment of non-financial losses in fatal injury cases. Scots Law Times.
9 Russell, E.J., 2022. Rising ramps: the liability of the occupier. Juridical Review, 1, pp.46-58.
10 Ahrens, A., Beirne, K., Economides, P., Kostarakos, I., McQuinn, K. and O'Toole, C., 2020. A review of the methodologies used in compiling owner-occupiers' housing indices.
11 Lee, R. and Ng, N., 2022. A Tale of Two Common Law Systems: Robinson and Spandeck-Comparing the'Test'for Duties of Care in Singapore and England. Sing. Comp. L. Rev., p.134.
12 Rijnhout, R., 2021. Mothers of Srebrenica: causation and partial liability under Dutch tort law. Utrecht J. Int'l & Eur. L., 36, p.127.
13Legislation.gov.uk. Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, About us, Available on: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/8-9/28/contents [Accessed on 29.05.2023]
14 Fleming, J.G., 1967. The role of negligence in modern tort law. Virginia Law Review, pp.815-846.
15 Payne, D., 1958. The Occupiers' Liability Act. The Modern Law Review, 21(4), pp.359-374.
