Subject: Aspect of Contract . SCENARIO 1 Ruth went to the ‘Thrills and Spills’ s
ID: 427635 • Letter: S
Question
Subject: Aspect of Contract
.
SCENARIO 1
Ruth went to the ‘Thrills and Spills’ swimming pool with her 4 year old son, Mark. The non-slip covering on the walkway surrounding the pool was in disrepair. There was a hole in the covering and Mark caught his foot in it and fell, hitting his head and breaking the kickboard he was carrying.
Ruth was near the office, which had a notice outside stating ‘NO ENTRY Staff Only’. Ruth saw a first aid box inside the office. It was fixed to the wall with a faulty clip. Ruth ran inside to collect the box and while releasing the clip she cut her hand and broke her bracelet.
‘Thrills and Spills’ leased the swimming pool premises from the owner and landlord, Premium Pools Ltd. The manager of ‘Thrills and Spills’ said the hole in the walkway covering had appeared only 2 days ago. He said the landlord Premium Pools Ltd were responsible for the first aid box and had been told 3 months ago that the faulty clip need to be fixed.
Question
1. Apply these Acts (1957, 1984and 1972 Occupiers Liability Act) to what has happened to Mark and Ruth.
2. What can Mark claim
3. What remedy can each of them claim?
4. Can she claim for injury and property damage? What remedy for (losses) can Mark and Ruth claim for
Explanation / Answer
Assumption: It is assumed that the Ruth and her son Mark were uninvited guests at the facility.
1. According to the Occupier's liability act 1984, the premise owner owes a duty to the visitors both invited as well as those uninvited. As a result, the owner of the swimming pool facility owes a duty to the Ruth and her son for their safety. The Occupier's laibility act 1957 does not cover uninvited guests, but later they were covered by the defective premises act 1972, where the premise owner owed a duty of care to all invitees as well as trespassers.
2. Mark can claim damages for the injury sustained by him ( but not for the broken clipboard, as only injuries and deat are covered under the act) due to breach of the duty by the owner of the Thrills and Spills, who failed to fulfill his duty for providing safe acess and passage to him by not repairing the hole and damaged non slip covering.
3. Both can claim damages for their injuries sustained as a result of breach of duty of care by the premise owners.
4. Ruth can claim damages for her injury only that was also a result of the breach of duty of the premise owner who failed to keep the first aid box in the area accessible to the visitors and did act negligently, by not mending the broken clip on the wall despite being in knowledge of it. The premise owner despite putting in a notice indicating "NO Entry, staff only" and banning the entry of common people, can't exclude the liability for death of personal injury to a person. However, none of them can claim for the loss of property owned by them as a breach of duty, as it is not covered by the act.