Ketchuplover
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
If the camera fell and caused the filmmaker a lot of damage on the studio and because of that. Is compensation still considered by the qualified camera fitter if the camera fitter works for a company and is not an individual?

This scenario is made up, I am better at remembering scenarios. I prefer to work like this. I just want to make sure that I am on the right lines.
0
reply
heathereloise
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
I can't really answer the first one. But, in the second one...if the camera fitter is a full time employee of the studio, the studio is responsible for the employee's actions (or consequences of). If the studio had hired the camera fitter for just that job then the camera fitter does owe a duty of care and can be held responsible. Does that help at all?
1
reply
heathereloise
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
I believe so, yes. So long as the employee was doing what he was employed to do, the company is held responsible for his actions. If he is acting outside the scope of his employment then the company is not responsible. We once had a case where a bus conductor was reversing a bus at the end of a route and he hit a person. The company was not held liable for the accident because the bus conductor was not hired to drive the bus, he was only hired to collect money. Hope that helps to explain it a little better!
0
reply
Cutmeloose
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
In response to question one, it is unlikely to be a case of psychiatric injury. If the mother has not witnessed the immediate aftermath of the death of the child. There must be proximity in time, perception and relationship.
1
reply
Ketchuplover
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Cutmeloose)
In response to question one, it is unlikely to be a case of psychiatric injury. If the mother has not witnessed the immediate aftermath of the death of the child. There must be proximity in time, perception and relationship.
What if the mother sees the dead body in bloody state after some time like maybe 3 hours? or is 6 hours the maximum?
0
reply
Cutmeloose
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Ketchuplover)
What if the other sees the dead body in bloddy state after some time like maybe 3 hours? or is 6 hours the maximum?
It will probably depend on whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the mother would encounter the dead body in that timespan. I don't think there is an arbitrary maximum of six hours.

If the mother goes to the hospital to identify the body and suffer psychiatric injury as a result, there may be liability.

Look at case like Bourhill v Young, McLoughlin v O'Brian etc.
0
reply
swayze11
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
It has been several years since last dealing with a case of tort so you'll need to check what I've said.
The studio owes a duty of care in providing a safe workplace for all employees and others on the premises. So assuming the studio was under a duty of care for the person then it would be responsible considering statutory health and safety laws. The studio in turn could then sue the camera fitter only if he is working as an individual. If he is working for a company the studio will seek damages form the fitter's employing company (provided he was fitted the camera whilst under a duty of employment).

If a duty of care is not established between the studio (there a numerous cases where an employer can do this given certain conditions)
Regarding causation and foreseeablity, if done correctly, one could argue or at least entertain that there was a direct link between the negligence of the camera fitter which caused death. There was no break in the chain of causation if the studio could reasonably rely on the experience and qualifications of the fitter, as to make the event which occurred unforeseeable on part of the studio.

Regarding the mother it is all down to circumstance. How bad was the shock-disorder, did it stop her from doing things normally?
Did either party owe her a duty of care?

This is all rather superficial but hope it helps
1
reply
Ketchuplover
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by swayze11)
It has been several years since last dealing with a case of tort so you'll need to check what I've said.
The studio owes a duty of care in providing a safe workplace for all employees and others on the premises. So assuming the studio was under a duty of care for the person then it would be responsible considering statutory health and safety laws. The studio in turn could then sue the camera fitter only if he is working as an individual. If he is working for a company the studio will seek damages form the fitter's employing company (provided he was fitted the camera whilst under a duty of employment).

If a duty of care is not established between the studio (there a numerous cases where an employer can do this given certain conditions)
Regarding causation and foreseeablity, if done correctly, one could argue or at least entertain that there was a direct link between the negligence of the camera fitter which caused death. There was no break in the chain of causation if the studio could reasonably rely on the experience and qualifications of the fitter, as to make the event which occurred unforeseeable on part of the studio.

Regarding the mother it is all down to circumstance. How bad was the shock-disorder, did it stop her from doing things normally?
Did either party owe her a duty of care?

This is all rather superficial but hope it helps
Thank you for your answer, it helped a lot. But I have thought that the camera fitter(as a company) is expected to be a professional therefore, it is foreseeable that if the fitting has been done negligently, it is likely to hurt someone. Also, no precautions would have been taken by the studio because the camera fitter is being trusted as a professional. Is this right or am I going too deep into other possibilities?
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Ketchuplover)
Thank you for your answer, it helped a lot. But I have thought that the camera fitter(as a company) is expected to be a professional therefore, it is foreseeable that if the fitting has been done negligently, it is likely to hurt someone. Also, no precautions would have been taken by the studio because the camera fitter is being trusted as a professional. Is this right or am I going too deep into other possibilities?
You're correct but it would become a very technical fight between the studio's and the fitter's insurance companies. In some scenarios it's very clear - if you own a building with a lift, you trust the lift company as you have no real ability to service or inspect the lift yourself -hence if the lift fails due to negligence, that misses the occupier and goes to the "expert". However, if the building is a studio and the business of the occupier is related to that, it could be that the occupier has enough competence and control over the fittings to be liable.
1
reply
Old_Simon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by heathereloise)
I believe so, yes. So long as the employee was doing what he was employed to do, the company is held responsible for his actions. If he is acting outside the scope of his employment then the company is not responsible. We once had a case where a bus conductor was reversing a bus at the end of a route and he hit a person. The company was not held liable for the accident because the bus conductor was not hired to drive the bus, he was only hired to collect money. Hope that helps to explain it a little better!
Acts out side of the duties of employment can still give rise to liability in some circumstances. eg sexual abuse in care homes and violent assaults by staff on customers. The original bus driving case is about 100 years old.
0
reply
Ketchuplover
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Clip)
You're correct but it would become a very technical fight between the studio's and the fitter's insurance companies. In some scenarios it's very clear - if you own a building with a lift, you trust the lift company as you have no real ability to service or inspect the lift yourself -hence if the lift fails due to negligence, that misses the occupier and goes to the "expert". However, if the building is a studio and the business of the occupier is related to that, it could be that the occupier has enough competence and control over the fittings to be liable.
So does that mean that the only way to award these two people is to compensate them? How do you compensate dead people? Is the mother going to be compensated instead as she develops post-traumatic shock disorder?
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Ketchuplover)
So does that mean that the only way to award these two people is to compensate them? How do you compensate dead people? Is the mother going to be compensated instead as she develops post-traumatic shock disorder?
Tort is almost always about damages. The only equitable remedy might be a order to prevent future recurrence, but that won't always be appropriate.
0
reply
Ketchuplover
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Clip)
Tort is almost always about damages. The only equitable remedy might be a order to prevent future recurrence, but that won't always be appropriate.
Thank you, I understand now. What if someone is left disabled or blind/deaf etc. if they were standing too close to the scene of the camera where the camera broke? Is the person negligent for standing too close?
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Ketchuplover)
Thank you, I understand now. What if someone is left disabled or blind/deaf etc. if they were standing too close to the scene of the camera where the camera broke? Is the person negligent for standing too close?
This is a very specific scenario you're talking about and I'm not sure I even understand what it's about. Are you talking about a movie camera? Was it mounted up high?
0
reply
Old_Simon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Ketchuplover)
Thank you, I understand now. What if someone is left disabled or blind/deaf etc. if they were standing too close to the scene of the camera where the camera broke? Is the person negligent for standing too close?
The injured party has a claim for damages. If they contributed to their own injury in some way that would reduce the damages. On the facts you stated that is unlikely to apply. A person who is disabled on a company premises is entitled to substantial compo.
1
reply
swayze11
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Ketchuplover)
Thank you for your answer, it helped a lot. But I have thought that the camera fitter(as a company) is expected to be a professional therefore, it is foreseeable that if the fitting has been done negligently, it is likely to hurt someone. Also, no precautions would have been taken by the studio because the camera fitter is being trusted as a professional. Is this right or am I going too deep into other possibilities?
With problem questions, there is normally never enough detail to confidently place the blame on a party, allowing you explore different possibilities and then assume the most likely, or however you wish to handle it.

The camera fitter (as a company or individual) would be responsible provided that there is no break in the chain of causation by a third party.
You could possibly explore this avenue more or simply give examples of a few cases and explain the significance, then move on.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you haven't confirmed your firm and insurance choices yet, why is that?

I don't want to decide until I've received all my offers (47)
40.17%
I am waiting until the deadline in case anything in my life changes (21)
17.95%
I am waiting until the deadline in case something in the world changes (ie. pandemic-related) (6)
5.13%
I am waiting until I can see the unis in person (10)
8.55%
I still have more questions before I made my decision (10)
8.55%
No reason, just haven't entered it yet (10)
8.55%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (13)
11.11%

Watched Threads

View All