Legal case

Negligence in the Gym

This suit would be covered under the tort of negligence. The first thing to consider if there was a duty of care owed to Steve by either the manufacturer or the Health Club because he could potentially be able to sue both of them. In both cases yes, a duty of care is owed to him, because the manufacture has a responsibility to ensure that safety of the equipment that they produce. Even though the manufacturer did not have any direct contact with the final consumer, there is commercial relationship that exists between them. Steve has paid to use the equipment that was specifically manufactured for use in health clubs. The design of the machine is completely up to the manufacturer and they are required to make it foreseeably safe. By building a machine where someone could be injured by touching an easily moving part they could have reasonably foreseen an injury. Thus the conditions of duty are met. The club has a duty to provide machines that are safe for use. The owner of the gym was aware that the machine could be dangerous if someone got their hands in the machinery because the manual was in the office. Therefore since there was some risk, he could have foreseen this loss. The criteria for proximity are present because there is a commercial arrangement between Steve and the gym.
The next question is a question about the standard of care that is owed to Steve. In the case of the owner of the gym it is possible that the standard of care is to not supply damaged or threatening equipment or to allow patrons to use the machines in a dangerous way. Therefore the standard of care was to inform and warn the clientele about the dangers that could occur on the machines which did not happen. A reasonable person would assumed that the gym should have warned Steve. . In the case of the manufacture a reasonable standard of care would be to develop machines that make it reasonably difficult to injure oneself. As a