Commercial Law Analysis - Case Study Example

The impact point on the ground should have been with fine beach sand. In this case, this was not to be found. The ground was semi-hard to hard up to a height of 0.3m and harder beyond this height. A series of studies were done to find out whether the hardness of the impacting surface could have any effect on the damage done to his skill. The research did prove that this was true. The harder the surface, the damage is hard. There should have been beach sand in the pit at least up to a depth of 0.3 m. This was not to be found.

The Respondent's reason for his head having to impact the ground first was also found to be not in consonance with the scientific evidence at hand. There is a possibility that the Respondent was traveling upside down for such a large impact to happen. At the trial court, the trial Judge offered compensation to the Respondent and held valid the claim that the damage to the Respondent is due to the negligence of the City. The City has moved the appellate court subsequently as an appeal over the decision made by the trial court.

Summary of Decision: The Judges in the Appeal court considered the following stance and the facts above to come to a conclusion on the case: 1. The Judges found that this was a case under the causation principle. The Appellant, in this case, is liable only if the damage is caused by the negligent act of the Appellant of the case. And it is the onus of the Respondent to prove that the act did cause the damage. 2. The negligent act of the Appellant need not be the sole cause of the damage. It could have materially contributed to the loss or damage to the Respondent.