Course: Legal aspect of contract SCENARIO 1 Ruth went to the ‘Thrills and Spills
ID: 428235 • Letter: C
Question
Course: Legal 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.
Advise Ruth and Mark as to any possible claims they may have under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 and the Defective Premises Act 1972.
1. Can (1) Mark, and (2) Ruth bring a claim against ‘Thrills and Spills’ and /or Premium Pools Ltd?
2. What must be proved under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957?
3. What must be proved under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984?
4. What must be proved under the Defective Premises Act 1972?
5. Apply these Acts to what has happened to Mark and Ruth.
6. What remedy can each of them claim?
.
GUIDELINE:
You need to answer the questions for this scenario. Establish the law first for each act. what duty is owed? what can be claimed? who can claim? then apply to Ruth and Mark who have suffered ijury and property damage
Explanation / Answer
1. Yes, both Mark and Ruth can bring a claim against Thrills and Spills as well as Premium pools ltd. As both showed a breach of negligence in their respective part.
2. Occupiers' liability act 1957 :-
The law covers occupiers' liability and is enacted by Parliament of U.K.
The law states that - " An Act to amend the law of England and Wales as to the liability of occupiers and others for injury or damage resulting to persons or goods lawfully on any land or other property from dangers due to the state of the property or to things done or omitted to be done there, to make provision as to the operation in relation to the Crown of laws made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland for similar purposes or otherwise amending the law of tort, and for purposes connected therewith ".
The law mainly imposes the duty owned by the occupier to those who comes to the property or the land. Because of the occupier's breach of duty the visitors got injured or harmed. It is an act of negligence. It is proved that due to negligence of 'Thrills and Spills' both Ruth and Mark got injured.
3. Occupiers' liability act 1984 :-
This law also covers occupiers' liability and is also enacted by the Parliament of U.K.
The law states that - " An Act to amend the law of England and Wales as to the liability of persons as occupiers of premises for injury suffered by persons other than their visitors; and to amend the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as it applies to England and Wales, in relation to persons obtaining access to premises for recreational or educational purposes ".
In this law it states that the occupier has some duty of care and reaponsibility for the persons other than the occuper's visitors. If the occupier has knowledge about the danger and people may come near the danger then it is expected from the occupier to inform the visitors about that danger and protect them. From this law it is proved that although there was a sign board outside the office but still the occupier is very much liable as he knows about the faulty clip.
4. Defective Premises Act 1972 :-
The law covers the landlord and builders' liability and is enacted by the Parliament of U.K.
The law states that - " An Act to impose duties in connection with the provision of dwellings and otherwise to amend the law of England and Wales as to liability for injury or damage caused to persons through defects in the state of premises ".
From the law it can be proved that the owner of Primium Pools Ltd. is responsible for the visitor's injury. It is an act of negligence.
5. In case of Mark, it can be seen that the occupier is purely responsible for the hole in the covering as he was aware of the danger in the hole, but still he didn't repaired it or bothered to protect the visitors from the hole. The occupier is always responsible for creating trust among the visitors so they can feel safe in the property. So, it can be said that it is a breach of negligence.
In case of Ruth, the occupier is again responsible for the breach of tort. It is because although he put a sign board of no entry outside the office but atleast he was aware of the faulty clip and he didn't repair it, results in the injury of Ruth. This case can be arguable because the occupeir can say that he tried to prevent the vistors from entering the office but still they did. But the law says that this statement is not satisfied to make the occupier from liability. This is also a breach of duty of care.
6. Remedy :-
There are various remedy for the breach of negligence and tort. The penalty is based on the nature of the breach.
Reference, incase needed -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupiers%27_Liability_Act_1957
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupiers%27_Liability_Act_1984
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_Premises_Act_1972
Hope this helps :)
Please rate me. Thanks.