Australian Law - Business Premises - Negligence
Introduction
This case study will examine case number 2, Walter’s Ice-cream shop, and present all aspects within the PIRAC framework. For purposes of succinctness, the original statement of case facts will not be repeated here, however a summary list of the factual events is presented in chronological order as follows : * Builder leaves paint pot on shop floor after completing paint work. * Walter notices the paint pot and decides to leave it with intention to move later. * Walter opens shop * William and Niral enter shop. Niral opens paint pot and spills paint ( unseen by Walter ). * Franny enters shop, slips on paint, and breaks hip.
Parties
No. | Name | Description | 1 | Walter | Owner and operator of the ice-cream shop. | 2 | ‘Builder’ | A builder contracted by Walter. Is the party who leaves the pot of paint on the floor of the shop. | 3 | William | Customer ( adult ) and father of Niral. | 4 | Niral | Child of William. Assumed to be a minor. Age unknown. Is the party who opens the pot of paint and spills it on the shop floor causing the accident. | 5 | Franny | Customer. An Elderly lady who suffers a broken hip after slipping on the spilt paint. She is the party seeking legal advice. |
Issues * Is Fanny able to sue Walter for negligence? If so, is Walter able to share some of the blame for negligence with the builder, for leaving the paint in the first place, or with Niral for causing the accident by spilling the paint? * Is Fanny able to sue the builder directly for negligence? * Is Fanny able to sue Niral directly for negligence? In relation to this point, is William in some way liable for negligence due to his position of care of his child Niral? In other words does he bear some responsibility for the consequences of Niral’s behaviour?
Rules
The tort of negligence is central to the issues raised; therefore the plaintiff must prove all three requirements under the tort of negligence in order to
This case study will examine case number 2, Walter’s Ice-cream shop, and present all aspects within the PIRAC framework. For purposes of succinctness, the original statement of case facts will not be repeated here, however a summary list of the factual events is presented in chronological order as follows : * Builder leaves paint pot on shop floor after completing paint work. * Walter notices the paint pot and decides to leave it with intention to move later. * Walter opens shop * William and Niral enter shop. Niral opens paint pot and spills paint ( unseen by Walter ). * Franny enters shop, slips on paint, and breaks hip.
Parties
No. | Name | Description | 1 | Walter | Owner and operator of the ice-cream shop. | 2 | ‘Builder’ | A builder contracted by Walter. Is the party who leaves the pot of paint on the floor of the shop. | 3 | William | Customer ( adult ) and father of Niral. | 4 | Niral | Child of William. Assumed to be a minor. Age unknown. Is the party who opens the pot of paint and spills it on the shop floor causing the accident. | 5 | Franny | Customer. An Elderly lady who suffers a broken hip after slipping on the spilt paint. She is the party seeking legal advice. |
Issues * Is Fanny able to sue Walter for negligence? If so, is Walter able to share some of the blame for negligence with the builder, for leaving the paint in the first place, or with Niral for causing the accident by spilling the paint? * Is Fanny able to sue the builder directly for negligence? * Is Fanny able to sue Niral directly for negligence? In relation to this point, is William in some way liable for negligence due to his position of care of his child Niral? In other words does he bear some responsibility for the consequences of Niral’s behaviour?
Rules
The tort of negligence is central to the issues raised; therefore the plaintiff must prove all three requirements under the tort of negligence in order to
References: James, N 2010, Business Law, John Wiley and Sons, Milton Qld. Legislation Civil Liability Act 2002 (tas) Legal Authorities Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 222 ALR McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199 Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672 Ragnelli v David Jones (Adelaide) Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] SASC 393