Rsm225 Assignment 2
RSM 225 Assignments #2
Business Law – Fall 2012
Instructor: Daniel R. Shear
“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”
Legal Issue #1 - Who should be responsible for the men with the broken wrist?
Background: On the final night of the haunt, there were two young men who ignored the sign that said "danger, upper balcony unsafe - this is NOT part of the tour" and went upstairs to use the bathroom. Due to that fact that the renovation was not done, thus, plumbing was not fully attached As a result, after they flushed the toilet, it turned out to have a huge water spill and caused one of them to fall and break the wrist.
Legal issues:
If the young man wants to sue whoever is responsible for this tragedy, he must claim that the occupier of that theatre was negligence; otherwise, he won’t get any compensation for the injury
Special Negligence – occupier’s liability
The occupier’s liability Act under [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 337 states that someone considered being occupier if one of the following requirements is met: 1. Someone is in physical possession of the premises. 2. Someone is responsible for and has control over the condition of the premises. 3. Someone is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises. 4. Someone who has control over who is allowed to enter those premises. 5. Also, tenants and owners are both occupiers.
In this situation, we have three different parties who consider being the occupier. 1. Leanne’s parents: As we know, Leanne’s parents are the legal owner of that theatre, consequently, they absolutely could be counted as one of the occupier, now, let’s examine if they were negligence at that time. (1) Duty of care: No matter what, as long as the invitees,
Business Law – Fall 2012
Instructor: Daniel R. Shear
“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”
Legal Issue #1 - Who should be responsible for the men with the broken wrist?
Background: On the final night of the haunt, there were two young men who ignored the sign that said "danger, upper balcony unsafe - this is NOT part of the tour" and went upstairs to use the bathroom. Due to that fact that the renovation was not done, thus, plumbing was not fully attached As a result, after they flushed the toilet, it turned out to have a huge water spill and caused one of them to fall and break the wrist.
Legal issues:
If the young man wants to sue whoever is responsible for this tragedy, he must claim that the occupier of that theatre was negligence; otherwise, he won’t get any compensation for the injury
Special Negligence – occupier’s liability
The occupier’s liability Act under [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 337 states that someone considered being occupier if one of the following requirements is met: 1. Someone is in physical possession of the premises. 2. Someone is responsible for and has control over the condition of the premises. 3. Someone is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises. 4. Someone who has control over who is allowed to enter those premises. 5. Also, tenants and owners are both occupiers.
In this situation, we have three different parties who consider being the occupier. 1. Leanne’s parents: As we know, Leanne’s parents are the legal owner of that theatre, consequently, they absolutely could be counted as one of the occupier, now, let’s examine if they were negligence at that time. (1) Duty of care: No matter what, as long as the invitees,