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, licensees, trespassers are in the premises of the occupier; the duty of care automatically falls on the shoulder of the occupier. In this case, the question is: were Leanne’s parents careful enough to make sure the people in their premises were safe? Due to the fact that by the time the accident happened, her parents had already rent the whole theatre to Leanne by a proper contract, even though the renovation of that theatre wasn’t completed yet. Since the age of Leanne is not given, we could not tell if Leanne is over 18 or not. If Leanne is below the age of 18, According to the law, persons under the “age of majority”: 18 in Ontario (19 in B.C.) – at time contract made she would consider being a minor, and the law says that a minor usually cannot make a rational decision therefore treated as legal incapacity. In this case, the parents should be responsible for making their daughter the person who has control over the place. On the other hand, if Leanne is above 18, due to the fact that her parents have not warned about the possible hazards that the theatre could have to the visitors, they are still responsible for not fulfilling the duty of care. (2) Standard of care: As we know that the man with broken wrist was a trespasser who is not permitted before entering that premise (upstairs). The unfinished plumbing was not deliberately set up to harm any of the people at the theatre. Therefore, her parents have met the standard of care. (3) Physical causation: the unfinished plumbing was not the direct causation of that harm; nevertheless, it was the cause to make the water spilled and indirectly harm the young man. (4) Foreseeable harm: In this case, the harm is a bodily injury. Before this haunt, the theatre was in renovation, after Leanne proposed the haunted theatre plan; her parents accepted it and stopped the renovation instead. It is reasonable for her parents to notice that there should be some potential dangers in the theatre, however, they were just amazed...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document