Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to use of cookies. Learn more.
I agree
Get fixed price of £11 / page for your first order for any deadline! Save up to £24 / page only THIS MONTH!
Special Offer For You!
Get fixed price of £11 per page for your first order for any deadline.
Save up to £24 per page TODAY!
I want a discount!

Legal Issue

University/College: University of Arkansas System
Date: November 14, 2017
Type of paper: FamilyHealthLaw
Words: 362
I want a sample

Legal Issue

II-AC Answer: ISSUE: Is the Timberlines own the negligent for duty of care? Should the Timberlines put public authorities? Should the Timberlines take occupiers liabilities? Is there a loss making event for Lindsey Loran? Law: Law of Tort?The tort of negligence?Duty of care/ public authorities/ occupiers liabilities. Duty of care: SWAIN v WAVERED MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (2005) public authorities: Angle v Rottenest Island Authority (1993) occupier’s liabilities: Australian Safely Stores Pity Ltd v Azalea (1986) Application

In regard to the matter between Lindsey Loran an the Timberlines, it is likely that the court would consider common law principle in relation to whether the Timberlines own the duty of care. L) Whether the timberlines should put warning outside. II) Whether the timberlines should warn persons of the foreseeable risks. In regard to duty of care, the court may consider the principles established. In this case, Mr.. Swam waded out about 15 meters into waist-deep water and dived through a wave but hit his head on a indaba.

The court held that the council had been negligent. In regard to public authorities, the case Angle v Rottenest Island Authority (1993) , N struck his head on a submerged rock, becoming a paraplegic, By majority HOC decided that ARIA were liable. The failure to warn of the hidden danger was a breach of a duty of care and was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. In regard to occupiers liabilities, the case Australian Safely Stores Pity Ltd v Azalea (1986) is assumed. The Azalea was injured when she slipped on the wet lour of the defendant’s supermarket.

Z sued for damages. Although it had been a rainy day HOC held that GASPS as an occupier owed Z a duty of care. As the risk was foreseeable GASPS should have taken adequate precautions to avoid harm. Evidence that the timetables family did not provide the duty of care. Evidence that she was injured badly. Conclusion: 2) Provide On the balance of probability it is likely that the court would find for the timberlines on the ground of– he tort of negligence?Duty of care/ public authorities/ occupier’s liabilities.

Order an Essay Just
in a few Clicks!
Send Us Your Inquiry