The Entertainment Ride Regulation Act - Essay Example

?The (fictitious) Entertainment Ride Regulation Act Introduction The Entertainment Ride Regulation Act commonly referred to as the fictitious Act was enacted by parliament following the increasing cases of accidents at adventure parks and fairgrounds in the recent years. The Act passed in 2011 was meant to check on the increasing incidents of accidents and the rights of the road users as well as the ride and business owners. The Act has been divided into different sections with the first three being the main focusing on the rides rules and regulations1. Section one defines the scope of the Act stating that its provisions are applicable to all the rides that are operated as part of an amusement or fairground park. The section goes further to define a ride in the context of the Act terming it as any equipment meant to ferry passengers for exhilaration or entertainment purposes. Section 2 of the Act introduces the Ride Safety Agency (RSA). The agency is charged with the responsibility of carrying out inspections issuing licenses and imposing sanctions in cases where the licensing conditions or regulations stated under the Act are breached. The RSA is empowered to administer penalties like issuing fines, demanding for repairs or improvements on the rides. It also has the powers to close down the rides or demolish the rides or sometimes revoke licenses2. In cases of moving rides, the provisions in the Act states that such forms of entertainment can be destroyed or confiscated in case they breach any of the RSA regulations. Section 3 comes up with a licensing regime which requires all the ride operators to lawfully obtain licenses before operating any rides. These licenses have to be obtained legally from the RSA. There have been previous cases which have made this act to be put in place. For example, on 20th November 2011, There was an accident in Australia involving a fair ride called the Cha Cha. A thirteen year old girl was thrown from the ride and flung into a safety fence which was metallic. She was again struck when she tried to stand. In the same accident, two other teenagers got minor cuts. The investigating company, WorkSafe Victoria, the ride did not meet the safety standards set aside by Australia. The section also expects the RSA to come up with a policy covering the issuing of licenses that has to be agreed upon after first consulting the relevant parties. The provisions mentioned above have already been enforced and the RSA has already assumed its responsibility of seeing that the provisions of the Act are followed to the latter. This has led to the RSA officers to lock horns with most of the rides users and owners who don’t necessarily understand provisions in the Entertainment Ride Regulations Act or are ignorant and assume the powers vested in the RSA. On the other hand, the RSA and its officers have taken advantage of the powers given to them and are harassing owners and users of rides3. This has called for the need to review the judicial application in order to bring to action the private law or find redress using other grievance resolution means. Such negligence leads to fatal accidents like the one seen in Dublin, Ireland. On October 24th 2011, a 31 year old woman was killed after going for a ride at the Tip Top ride. She was thrown from her bucket seat and fell on metal steps at the ride’s platform. It is reported that she died on the spot. Although the ride was found to be in great mechanical condition, it is believed that the woman slipped under the safety bar and fell. Case 1 This involves an owner of a stall and the RSA officials. Alice who owns a ‘hook a duck’ stall is being accused by the RSA officials for operating her stall at a fair without a license. Following this breach of the Entertainment Ride Regulations Act provisions according to the officers, Alice is fined of 5000 pounds. With references to section 1 of the Act, Alice’s stall falls under the Acts definition of a ride thus it is under the jurisdiction of its provision making the RSA officers have the right to question her about the license of her stall. Now that the insofar happens to be relevant, the validity of the other section in this case has to be considered. According to section 2 of the Act, the Ride Safety Agency is given the power to issue licenses and go ahead to impose sanctions in case any of the conditions stated in the Acts provisions are breached. In this case, Alice breached one of the Acts conditions by operating without a license and was liable to being fined by the officers. Among the penalties in the provision is the issuing of fines. Although the officers were carrying out their work according to the law, the act of invoking the privileges any ride user or owner diminishes greatly when such an invocation will result to interference of the effective operation of an applicable regulatory regime meant to impact the State’s public purposes that are in no way related to criminal law enforcement. Also the power of licensing business in some locations is governed by the areas constitutional powers4. It is the interest of the government to stabilize and preserve the neighborhood of individual cities. Alice can claim not to be contended with the charges as she is entitled to operate her commercial business is any location that is not residential and she was not making profit by having her business staged at a public street. The regulations of the RSA though more restrictive, appear to be of the same character. Thus the ordinance for special treatment on particular businesses that fall under general business classifications allowed under zoning classifies and laws regulate users solely by referring to the constitutional content protecting materials material purveyed to the public. In this case, Alice is found guilty by the RSA officers although some of her rights according to the private laws have been breached by the officers. Before the officers could go ahead and charge her for operating her stall, they were supposed to consider her constitutional rights and the prevailing conditions why the stall is under operation without a license. Alice has very little to do about the case as no business serving the public is expected to operate without a license. However, the Acts provisions do not state the amount of fine that such a breach is liable for thus Alice has the right to appeal for the amount of fine she is expected to pay the RSA officers. Case II This case is between an association and the RSA concerning the adoption of a licensing policy in accordance to section 3 of the Act. Brian who is the Fairground Operators Association’s chairman is upset about the time the RSA awarded to his association to get back to the consultations before the adoption of the license. The agency only gave his association a period of one week to respond before it gets its license. Brain is further disappointed as he realized that the concerns the association raised while responding to prior consultation before the license was issues were not considered in the finalized policy. By referring to section 3 of the Entertainment Ride Regulation Act 2011, the association complied with the provision of having to obtain a license before it started operating the Association from the RSA. The RSA also honored its part by consulting the association before coming up with a policy that would guide it to issue the association with a license5. However, the RSA breached the contract by limiting the time it gave to the association to react to the consultation. Moreso, the RSA did not take note of the concerns raised by the association when they responded in a very short time given to them on the consultations that were supposed to be included in the final policy. Following this breach of contract, Brian should take legal actions against the RSA for failing to meet their side of the memorandum6. The law and the constitution permits the Associations to insist on compliance with all the procedures stated in all sections of the Entertainment Ride Regulation Act 2011 so long as the arbitrations required are conducted expeditiously and are non-binding. In this case the RSA failed to comply with this law as it did not meet all the procedures that have to be observed in issuing the license. The main concern of Brian the chairman of the association is that the agency did not take into consideration the issues raised by his organization before coming up with the final policy. Just as the RSA expects its clients to meet all the conditions in the provisions, the RSA is also required to meet its side of the bargain in order for the agreement to be complete. No side in the agreement should be immune of complying with the created regulations and licensing conditions provided in the Act. Case III This case is on the owner of a fairground rollercoaster who is charged for not maintaining her fairground according to the conditions and requirements of the licensing act. Carole is being accused of not adequately maintaining her ride by the RSA officials. Her ride had a missing safety handrail section and 3 of its light bulbs were discovered to be defective. Following the conditions of the ride, the RSA officials ordered Carole to immediately close down her ride. This was in accordance to section 2 of the Act which states that the penalties on any breach of the conditions include fines, conditioned repairs and improvements on the rides, possible license revocation, or the ride being closed down or demolished7. The officials left a notice for further investigation on the matter to see if there is need for further action. Further investigations by the inspectors from the agency recommended the confiscation of the rollercoaster and the revocation of her operating license. The ride was also expected to remain closed until the case was decided by the RSA’s chief inspector. At this juncture, the RSA was acting within its jurisdiction and complying with the conditions provided in the Act. Carole case was heard after 3 months trying to determine if the recommendations tabled by the inspectors were to be followed by the RSA. It is in this case that Carole felt that her rights were not put into consideration and the conditions provided in the Act breached. She was not allowed to have a legal representation du ring the hearing8. Carole also didn’t get the chance to make any oral statement or even have the chance to cross examine the RSA witnesses. This was a suppression of the freedom of expression of Carole that is against the constitution. She had the right to share her side of the story as well as examine the witness presented by the RSA. This means that the case was one sided and no justice could prevail. More so the fate of her case was in the hands of a panel made up of 3 people who included the RSA chief inspector, a RSA employee and the inspector who was behind the rides closure notice. These were the same people behind the closure of her ride thus the case may have as well be pre-determined. It was like a formality to have the case as Carole was not allowed to defend her position. This is against the provisions of the law as each plaintiff has the right to cross examine any witnesses as well as defending their positions in any possible way. This was evident as the panel is expected to uphold the recommendations that were presented by the inspector. This meant that her license for operating her ride was revoked with her rollercoaster confiscated and later destroyed. This was without any valid reasons from the panel to land on such a tough decision. This was a breach of section 2 of the Act as despite the fact that the section had provisions for possible penalties depending on the kind of regulation breached, it also expected the officers to observe the rights of the clients and to maintain justice in any case that comes before them. Following this breach of Carole rights, she had a right to take legal actions against the RSA suing them for failing to meet the conditions of the Act9. Despite the fact that Carole’s ride had some defaults, she had the right to have her rights observed and the case be fairly judged. Reasons for the panel decision to revoke her operating license and the confiscation and destruction of her rollercoaster should been clearly presented before Carole before the decision was made10. Although the RSA has been empowered to take such actions in situations where the riders breach the Entertainment Ride Regulation Act 2011 conditions, the agency has to provide valid evidence and reasons before taking any action and also the panel passing such judgment should be in such a way that observes the rights of both the plaintiff and the defendant. In this case the rights of Carole were not observed thus she has the right according to the klaw to take legal actions against the RSA. References Bastiat, F. 2011. The Law. New York: TribecaBooks11. Chemerinsky, E. 2009.Constitutional Law.London: Manchester University Press Fanning, J & Mathews, L. 2011.Federal Government and the Reins Act: Major Regulations. New York: Nova Science Pub Inc. Franklin, B. 2011.Declaration of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights and Constitutional Amendements.New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Hamilton, A. & Jay, J. 2011.The Federalist Papers.New York: The MIT Press Jordan, L. 1999. The U. S Constitution: And Fascinating Facts About It. New York: Beacon Press Olive, S. 2005. The Free Ride is Over. Madrid: Difusora de informacionPeriodica. New York: Kessenger Publishing. Stone, R. &Karlan, S. 2009. Constitutional Law.New York: The MIT Press Trevelyan, J &Clayden, P. 2007. Rights of Way: a guide to law and practice. London: The Ramblers Association Wendell, O. 2004.The Path of The Law. New York: Kessenger Publishing. Read More