Law of tort, Case study - Essay Example

Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries but they also include economic, emotional, reputational injuries as well as breach of property, privacy, or constitutional rights. The given case study is related to a tort in which the firm ‘Go Kwick’ is forced to defend itself from legal damages. This paper will critically analyze various legal possibilities that are helpful for Go Kwick to defend itself in a legal suit. Background of the case Go Kwick operates a go cart track and has hired an instructor in order to give lessons to visitors throughout the year.

The instructor is obliged to spend the initial ten minutes of the first lesson teaching beginners how to use the equipment properly. However, once the instructor failed to provide adequate information to the beginners and that resulted in the severe head injury of an individual. This unpleasant incident might have been prevented if the individual had taken proper safety measures under the responsibility of the instructor. Similarly; Katrina, the owner of a house near to the go kart track raised her objection against the noise from the track at weekends and during summer evenings.

In addition, she argued that kart diesel fumes cause air pollution that exacerbated her asthma. On one occasion, Go Kwick’s one of the fork lift truck was left in front of her house for 24 hours and she was confined to her house whole day as she could not take her car out. Analysis of the facts From the case, we see that a person got severely injured from the cart due to the irresponsible act of the Go Kwick instructor. However, the Go Kwick has clearly stated on their notice board at the entrance that people use equipments at their own risk and Go Kwick accepts no liability for loss or injury howsoever caused.

This notification would assist the firm to defend itself in a lawsuit because Go Kwick can convince the court that the firm had given enough warning to the users. Although, the tort laws allow the individuals to file against physical injuries that are caused by the irresponsible acts of service providers, it is not applicable to the aggrieved person in this case since he had been given proper danger signals. Here, the plaintiff may claim that he had not noticed the warning at the entrance gate.

However, it is explicitly stated that “ignorance of law is not an excuse” (Reznek, 1997, p.70). This clause makes the plaintiff obliged to have adequate knowledge regarding various rules and regulations of the Go Kwick firm. Therefore, Go Kwick can easily defend the plaintiff under a lawsuit. At the same time, the company can file a suit against the unlawful act of the instructor since the kart accident has adversely affected the goodwill of the Go Kwick. From the case study, it is identified that the instructor had signed a document which described various duties and responsibilities of the instructors.

As discussed earlier, instructors are hired by Go Kwick on a contractual basis for a period of one year; they are responsible for giving the lessons throughout the year. The case study clearly indicates that the instructor was late for work and hurried through the safety instructions once and that led to the unpleasant incident. It was the duty of the instructor to provide safety harness and a safety helmet; but as Aksel neglected these precautionary practices, it increased the severity of the accident. Aksel’