Considers the Scope of Liability of Person †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Questions: Whether Adair can seek compensation for injuries from Eagle Farm Racing Pty Ltd? Whether Griffith University is vicariously liable to the owners of Black Midnight for the actions of Adair? Answers: Intrroducation Such risk was foreseeable in nature which means, that risk is of such nature that person knew it or ought to have known, and the risk was significant in nature. Person must be in such position in which any reasonable person takes precautions for avoiding such risk. This section further stated that following things are considered by Court for deciding whether reasonable person takes precautions against the risk of harm: Probability of occurrence of harm in case care was not taken by person, and Court also considers the seriousness of harm. Burden on person for taking precautions for avoiding the risk of harm, and utilization of activity at social level which creates that risk of harm[1]. Section 10 of Civil Liability Act 2003 states that for any proceedings which conduct on or after 2 December 2002, and related to breach of duty involves burden on reasonable person for taking precautions against any risk of harm also includes burden for taking precautions against any similar risk of harm, and any subsequent action taken by person for avoiding the risk of harm does not affects the liability of person related to that risk and it also does not considered as admission of liability related to that risk[2]. Section 11 of Civil Liability Act 2003 that decision related to breach of duty causes harm includes following elements: It is necessary that breach of duty was important condition for the occurrence of harm. Court also considers the scope of liability of the person for breach. In case of exceptional circumstances, Court consider established principles for deciding the case such as whether breach of duty satisfying or not satisfying subsection 1(a). In case subsection 1(a) is satisfied then Court considers the reason for which responsibility for the harm should be imposed on party[3]. Section 12 of Civil Liability Act 2003 states that for deciding the liability in case of breach of duty, onus of proof is imposed on plaintiff in every case[4]. Section 13 of Civil Liability Act 2003 states the meaning of obvious risk. An obvious risk related to person who suffers harm is a risk which arises in such circumstances that it seems obvious for reasonable person in those circumstances. This type of risk also includes risks that are patent or includes matter of common knowledge. Any risk can be obvious risk even though chances of occurrence of risk are very low. Risk is also considered as obvious risk even though risk is not is not prominent, conspicuous or physically observable[5]. Section 15 of the Act states that there is no liability of defendant and he does not own any duty towards plaintiff related to warn for an obvious risk. However, this section does not apply if: Plaintiff asks for any advice or information from defendant related to that risk or any written law imposed duty on defendant to warn the plaintiff. Defendant is professional, and risk relates with the risk of death or personal injury to the plaintiff from any provision which relates with the service of professional[6]. This can be understands through case law Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority[7]. In this case, Chief justice highlights conundrum established by this case, and states that any person who holds duty of care towards other person must take into account of the possibility that person towards whom duty is owned by defendant might fails to take care of his or her own safety. In the opinion of chief justice, this proposition contravenes the expectations of modern society and it seems similar to economic consequences. Chief justice further stated that his authority prevents him to participate in pushing the boundaries. These words of Chief justice get special attention of Chief Justice Spigelman's while deciding the case law Waverley Municipal Council v Swain [2003] NSWCA 61[8] and this case recognize the importance of relevant facts in civil liability case. Application: In the present case, a racing event was attended by accounting staff of Griffith University at Eagle Farm in Brisbane. Adair Devil, who is also the member of accounting staff consumed many hard drinks, and she climb the racing perimeter fence after gets encouragement by her peers. However, this fence worked as protective barrier between the racecourse and spectators, and it was almost 1.5 meters high. Adair managed to walk on fence for number of meters but later she fell on the racetrack because of overbalanced. She does not get injured by the horses but her leg was broken by the fall. She seeks compensation from the owners of Eagle Farm Racing Pty Ltd for not putting any warning sign related to potential danger of climbing the fence. In this case, risk related to climbing the fence is an obvious risk, and section 13 and 15 applied in this case. As per section 13 obvious risks related to person who suffers harm is a risk which arises in such circumstances that it seems obvious for reasonable person in those circumstances, and section 15 states that there is no liability of defendant and he does not own any duty towards plaintiff related to warn for an obvious risk. Therefore, there is no obligation on Eagle Farm to put any warning sign on fence. In the present case, Adair cannot seek compensation from Eagle Farm because related to fell from fence while climbing is an obvious risk. Answer 2 Vicarious liability is used to show that law state the responsibility on one person for the actions and misconduct of another person, and first person is free from the personal liability or fault. Vicarious liability principles are considered in context of civil proceedings. However, in case of criminal acts, vicarious liability was considered as outside terms by the commission. In other words, vicarious liability is imposed on one person by the law for any loss or injury caused because of wrongdoing of another person. This liability is imposed on person even though he is not personally at fault. This liability arises in the context of relationship between the person who commits wrong and person who is vicariously liable for the act of wrongdoer. This can be understands through example, such as employer is vicariously liable for the acts of his employee committed during the term of employment[9]. This can be understands through case law Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 per Scarman LJ at 147[10], in this case Court stated that vicarious liability is a policy device which is used for the purpose of extending liability arising from commission of a tort. In other words, this liability is considered as public policy and not as a principle. As per the principle of fairness it is considered that person must be get liable who put the tort feasor in the position to commit tort, instead of the innocent victim to which damaged or resulting loss is caused. For example, employer is liable towards the third parties for any loss suffered by them from the actions of his employee because it is the employer who appoints the employee and put the third party in risk from the wrongful act of the employee. In the present case, a racing event was attended by accounting staff of Griffith University at Eagle Farm in Brisbane. Adair Devil, who is also the member of accounting staff consumed many hard drinks, and she climb the racing perimeter fence after gets encouragement by her peers. Adair managed to walk on fence for number of meters but later she fell on the racetrack because of overbalanced. From the fall of Adair, one of the horses Black Midnight get startled from the presence of Adair at racing track, and from that day he was not able to race. Compensation was seeks by the owners of Black Midnight from Griffith University for the loss of potential winnings because Equine Veterinarian advised them that Black Midnight will never race again. In this case, there is relationship between the Griffith University and Adair because Adair works for them and he misconduct during the term of his employment. Therefore, Griffith University is vicariously liable for the act of Adair. References Griffith University is liable to pay compensation to owners of Black Midnight Website Queensland Law Reform Commission, Vicarious Liability, https://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/372527/R56.pdf Accessed on 9th May 2015. Case law Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority [1993] HCA 76. Waverley Municipal Council v Swain [2003] NSWCA 61. [1] Civil Liability Act 2003- S 9. [2] Civil Liability Act 2003- s 10. [3] Civil Liability Act 2003- s 11. [4] Civil Liability Act 2003- s 12. [5] Civil Liability Act 2003- s 13. [6] Civil Liability Act 2003- s 15. [7] Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority [1993] HCA 76. [8] Waverley Municipal Council v Swain [2003] NSWCA 61. [9] Queensland Law Reform Commission, Vicarious Liability, https://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/372527/R56.pdf Accessed on 9th May 2015. [10] Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 per Scarman LJ at 147.