Tort Law Watch

awilson9
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Can someone give me some pointers on how i should set out my answer to this question please?

Black Rock community festival, a loosely organised collection of music and attractions which raised money for local charities was in its 25th year. The festival was held on the village green which was partially owned by the council and was partially common land. PollosArts (PA) were hired to provide and operate a children’s carousel ride. Skyler volunteered to do face-painting for children. The festival committee charged 50p for entry for everyone. Circus Arts charged 1.00 per ride, donating 40p to charity, and Skyler charged 50p donating everything above the costs of the face paint to charity.
At the entrance to the festival a sign reads ‘Black Rock festival wishes you all a lovely time but is sorry that it cannot accept responsibility at all for any losses suffered while you are here’
Skyler and her 5 year old son Walter arrived at the festival. They paid the entrance fee and entered the festival site. Skyler paid for Walter to ride on the carousel, watched him climb onto one of the horses and then went off to set up her face painting stall some 5 metres away.
The carousel has a large sign in the centre column which states ‘always remain seated when the Carousel is in motion’. Walter thought the horse just in front seemed to be going up and down faster and decided he wanted to swap. In doing so he lost his balance, as there was some oil on the carousel spilled during its setting up, which had not been cleaned away. He fell, and suffered a broken arm and damage to his new coat.
Twins Jesse and Gayle, aged 4, had their faces painted. Unfortunately, the chair that Skyler was using for the children to sit on had not been properly erected, a fact that was obvious if checked, and when Skyler’s back was turned Gayle fell backwards, hitting her head on some concrete and was injured. Jesse suffered a reaction to one of the face paints, which was old stock and should not have been used for children.
Walter, Jesse and Gayle seek to recover damages for the harm they have suffered. The festival organisers discover that PA’s public liability insurance had lapsed.
Advise the parties.
0
reply
Mimir
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by awilson9)
Can someone give me some pointers on how i should set out my answer to this question please?
I've highlighted the issues you need to consider in your answer.

Black Rock community festival, a loosely organised collection of music and attractions which raised money for local charities was in its 25th year. The festival was held on the village green which was partially owned by the council and was partially common land. PollosArts (PA) were hired to provide and operate a children’s carousel ride. Skyler volunteered to do face-painting for children. The festival committee charged 50p for entry for everyone. Circus Arts charged 1.00 per ride, donating 40p to charity, and Skyler charged 50p donating everything above the costs of the face paint to charity.

At the entrance to the festival a sign reads ‘Black Rock festival wishes you all a lovely time but is sorry that it cannot accept responsibility at all for any losses suffered while you are here

Skyler and her 5 year old son Walter arrived at the festival. They paid the entrance fee and entered the festival site. Skyler paid for Walter to ride on the carousel, watched him climb onto one of the horses and then went off to set up her face painting stall some 5 metres away.

The carousel has a large sign in the centre column which states ‘always remain seated when the Carousel is in motion’. Walter thought the horse just in front seemed to be going up and down faster and decided he wanted to swap. In doing so he lost his balance, as there was some oil on the carousel spilled during its setting up, which had not been cleaned away. He fell, and suffered a broken arm and damage to his new coat.

Twins Jesse and Gayle, aged 4, had their faces painted. Unfortunately, the chair that Skyler was using for the children to sit on had not been properly erected, a fact that was obvious if checked, and when Skyler’s back was turned Gayle fell backwards, hitting her head on some concrete and was injured. Jesse suffered a reaction to one of the face paints, which was old stock and should not have been used for children.

Walter, Jesse and Gayle seek to recover damages for the harm they have suffered. The festival organisers discover that PA’s public liability insurance had lapsed.
Advise the parties.


The usual - duty, breach, causation, loss.

Which party owed the duty to whom.

Can you exclude liability?

The point about children is important - as is a dictum on parents' responsibilities for children.

There are signs around. Is that sufficient?

Think about who owns the land. Maybe there is vicarious liability (I don't know, I've only skim read).

They paid to get in. Consent? Risk?


There is case law for every single one of these points
0
reply
agaata5
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Occupiers' Liability
Step 1: Identify the occupier applying the control test (Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957;Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984) - A duty is imposed on the occupier, who is a person who has control of that part of the premises that pose a risk of injury on which the accident occurs (Wheat v Lacon & Co)
Step 2: Identify the status of those entering the land. . .
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 – visitor- Section 2(2) provides that the occupiers owes a common duty of care to all visitors, namely a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 – non-visitor- Section 1(3) provides that a duty of care is owed to a non-visitor if (i) the occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists; (ii) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other person is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity; (iii) the risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection - note, property damage is excluded by the virtue of s.1(8)
Step 3: distinguish between occupancy and active duty. . .
Issues:
- Exceeding permission given by the occupier (The Calgarth, Tomlinson v Congleton)
- Duty of care owed towards young children (Glasgow Corp v Taylor; Phipps v Rochester Corp)
- Independent contractors - Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, s. 2(4)(b); (Haseldine v Daw & Sons; Woodward v Hastings)
(the independent contractor may himself beliable to Cs subject to ordinary rules in negligence)
- Exclusion clauses - Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - business capacity
- The effect of warnings of danger
- Possibly, vicarious liability - the council is a partial owner of the land
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

University open days

  • Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 31 Jul '19
  • Staffordshire University
    Postgraduate open event - Stoke-on-Trent campus Postgraduate
    Wed, 7 Aug '19
  • University of Derby
    Foundation Open Event Further education
    Wed, 7 Aug '19

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (154)
17.64%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (76)
8.71%
No I am happy with my course choice (516)
59.11%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (127)
14.55%

Watched Threads

View All