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...

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.

• Can (1) Mark,    and    (2) Ruth  bring a claim against 'Thrills and Spills' and /or Premium Pools Ltd?
• What must be proved under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957?
• What must be proved under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984?
• What must be proved under the Defective Premises Act 1972?
• Apply these Acts to what has happened to Mark and Ruth.
• What remedy can each of them claim?

SCENARIO 2

Brian is given, by his brother Paul, a new 'Quality at Home' brand slow cooker from Best Goods Ltd. Brian uses it for the first time without any problems. The second time he uses the slow cooker, he puts it on as per the manufacturer's instructions and leaves his home to visit a friend. When he returns, the slow cooker is on fire, which destroys the slow cooker, some kitchen utensils and the kitchen units. The fire also badly damages the computer he uses for his business and his flat screen television (worth over £600) both of which had been on the kitchen units. The kitchen will need redecorating due to the smoke damage from the fire.

Advise Brian whether he can bring an action and what he can claim for:

 (1) in contract, and /or

(2) in the Tort of Negligence, and/or 

(3) under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

• Can Brian bring a claim based on contract? Explain liability in contract compared with liability in tort.
• What must Brian prove if he brings a claim based on the tort of Negligence?
• What must Brian prove to be successful in a claim based on the Consumer Protection Act 1987? 
• What are the possible remedies available to Brian?
• Would the manufacturer have any defences?

SCENARIO 3

Home Builders Ltd supplies and fits kitchens and bathrooms. Part of the business involves manufacturing its own tiles and furniture. Jon is employed by Home Builders Ltd as a wood machinist operating a bench mounted circular saw. Today, while operating the circular saw, Jon caught his hand in the saw and severed 4 fingers. At the time this occurred, he had worked a 12 hour shift and for the last 6 hours of his shift, his supervisor, Murad, asked him to lend his push stick (which he had been instructed to use for feeding small pieces of wood into the machine) to a colleague. He was working to complete an urgent job. Joe admitted that he had been distracted and chatting to a colleague when the accident occurred.

Advise Home Builders Ltd as to its liability in negligence, including vicarious liability and whether any defences are available to the company.

• What is vicarious liability?
• When is an employer vicariously liable for the actions of its employees?
• What are the 4 common law duties owed by an employer to its employees?
• What are the 3 points to be proved in any claim based on negligence?
• Would Jon be successful in a claim against his employer, Home Builders Ltd, and why?
• What is 'contributory negligence?
• Would Home Builders Ltd be able to use the defence of 'contributory negligence' in any claim by Jon?

SCENARIO 4

Ready and Co, a firm of accountants and auditors, were engaged to prepare the accounts and balance sheet for Products for People plc, knowing the accounts were to be sent to Hind, a private investor, who was thinking of buying shares in Products for People plc. The accounts were negligently prepared and showed the company as financially stable, even though the opposite was true and the company had large unpaid debts. Hind showed the accounts to her friend Imran. Hind bought AED1 million worth of shares and Imran bought AED 500,000 worth of shares. Within 6 months, Products for People plc went into liquidation and both Hind and Imran lost their investments. 

Advise (1) Hind, and (2) Imran whether they are likely to be successful in their claims in negligence against Ready and Co and what defences the company may have.

• What are the 3 points to be proved in any claim based on negligence?
• What does 'pure economic loss' mean and when can a claim be made for it?
• What must be proved in a claim for 'negligent misstatement?
• Would Hind be successful in a claim for 'negligent misstatement' against Ready and Co?
• Would Imran be successful in a claim for 'negligent misstatement' against Ready and Co?
• Would Ready and Co have any defences?