Scenario:
 This scenario continues, as before, in Assignment Brief B.  You are working as a legal assistant for one of the senior partners in a local firm of solicitors.  They have asked you to consider the following case studies and to prepare a report for each one.  Your reports will require you to consider each set of circumstances and to express your recommendations, based on your knowledge of UK law.




Case study  4



One night, Mark decides to check in at the Poshplace Hotel, which is owned by Ben. Later that night, Mark is in his room when a masked man enters and threatens to harm him unless he hands over his valuable antique jewellery. Mark hands it over. The thief later turns out to be Neil, the hotel gardener, who had stolen a master key to the hotel room.


…….









….


Meantime, downstairs in the kitchen, Roger, the dishwasher, is complaining about the skin rash he has developed as a result of long periods of washing up. Although rubber gloves are available, most employees do not use them. Colin, the head chef, is getting fed up with Roger and in his anger, knocks Roger unconscious with a frying pan.



Meanwhile, to cheer himself up, Mark later decides to go to the Hotel pool for a swim. A sign on the pool door reads: ‘Pool closed between 7.00pm and 7.00 am. No entry to visitors during these hours; ‘Dangerous when unattended’. Mark reads but ignores the sign and enters. He cannot find the light so just jumps in. In fact, the pool has been emptied and Mark is badly injured and tears his expensive designer swimming trunks


Task  4:  LO4 (LO 4.1, LO4.2 4.2), M3, D3



Evaluate the accuracy of each of the seven statements ( A-G, below)  individually, as they apply to the facts in the above scenario. A
pply the elements of the tort of negligence and defences and apply the elements of vicarious liability in these situations.




Statement A:
Neil does not owe Roger a non-delegable duty of care as an employer to provide a safe working environment.



Statement B:
Roger can bring a claim in vicarious liability against Neil for Colin’s actions.



Statement C:
  The Poshplace Hotel is liable to Mark under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.



Statement D:
The Poshplace Hotel is not liable to Mark under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 because of its warning notice.



Statement E:
Mark can use ordinary negligence principles in his claim against Poshplace.



Statement F
: Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, Mark will not be able to claim for the cost of his designer swimming trunks.



Statement G:
Mark can bring a claim in vicarious liability against Poshplace Hotel for the loss of his jewellery.



To achieve M3, the learner is able to organise their views in a logical and coherent manner that is appropriate for familiar and unfamiliar audience and be able to convey the prevailing legal judgements in a clear and relevant format.  To achieve D3, the learner will be able to use analytical and creative thinking with a broader understanding of the business environment while identifying its relevance to law.


…….









….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *