(Urgent) Law exam questions - Essay Example

The report that recorded by the witness who was also part of the company’s employees indicated that the icicle had been taken off the claimant’s left leg. The judge ruled that since the Santa and elf did not see the icicle as they discharged their duties in the usual and that there was protection scheme in operation the respondent was not in violation of duty. The judge added that icicle was invisible from the employees responsible (elf and Santa) because it was covered with a toy on one part and wall on the other side.

So, had they seen it earlier then they could have taken it away and the claimant could not suffer the injury. The judge ruled that the respondent was not responsible for the damage suffered by the visitor because the security system in place could have protected the claimant from falling. In this case, the legal issue involved the duty of care the employees of the company owes the visitors. It is the companys mandate to ensure all measures are set in place to protect the visitors against any injury or joss during the time they are in the premise.

In this case, the concern was whether the injury suffered by Dufosse when she fell upon stumbling against icicle was as a result of employees’ negligence. Following the application of an appeal, the appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the earlier ruling. The respondent on the other hand brought forth an argument that the appellant had contributed to injury by falling on the icicle. The judge argued that if the icicle was there to be fallen on then even the employees could have seen that icicle.

Therefore, the issue as to whether the appellant had contributed to the injury she suffered was not in order hence there was no contributory negligence in the case. By ratio decidendi, the issue is to assess the base on which the judge of appeal arrived at the ruling of the case at hand. As stated earlier, the judge in the district court