Nerlas Legal Problem - Case Study Example

Case Study on Nerla’s Legal Problem Case Study on Nerla’s Legal Problem Issue Nerla claims damages she encountered during her visit to Rocky Forest Park. She suffered from physical injuries and financial losses caused by the negligence of Rocky Shire Council Administration. Besides, the paper entails legal perspectives, which advises Nerla on some of the defences’ she may apply to win the case against Rocky Shire Council. Law The feedback of the case relates to the case of Donoghue v Stevenson and the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). Response to Nerla’s legal problem follows a framework of issues, legal principles, applications of law and conclusion (ILAC). The Civil Act 2003 (Qld) and the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) demand that the court considers the appropriateness of extensions of obligations as regards to cases of negligence. Moreover, the cases feature elements of public policy in considerations to limit the liability of practitioners. Application Provisions of the Acts relate to a person subject to negligence and harm suffered because of materialization (Clarkson, 2011). Any damage experienced according to Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) (CLA) demand compensation for inherent risks (South Australia, 2013). For example, Nerlas case cannot be exercised with reasonable skill and care without the application of CLA. Besides, the Acts provide that the plaintiff must prove the suffered damage initiated from a breach of duty. Issue Applications of the two legal acts to Nerlas case provided her with the opportunity to claim compensation for damages caused during her visit to Rocky Shire Council. Through the development of appropriate legal frameworks based on her case, Nerla can sue Rocky Shire and claim compensation before the court of law for damages caused by her visit to Rocky Forest Park. Law Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 applies in Nerla’s case. Particularly, it applies to a breach of the common law (Clarkson, 2011). The law discusses consequences of manufacturers who produce goods with the intention of reaching out to consumers while neglecting quality and health concerns. Moreover, the manufacturer has the duty to care for customers with reasonable future. Based on the proceedings in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, manufacturers must ensure the goods produced are free from defects and harmless. Manufacturers must ensure the production of safe and high-quality goods that meet the standards of consumer safety. Application The Rocky Shire Council was aware of rock surfaces that were unstable and in a wet when Nerla arrived in the park. However, the council did not take any steps of warning climbers of the dangers involved in climbing wet-surfaced rocks. In the park, Nerla was anxious to begin rock climbing despite the fact that continuous rain experienced a week earlier before her arrival had weakened the rock surfaces; the rock area she chooses to climb showed signs of slippage resulting from the rain. Issue Nerlas rock climbing resulted in an accident after the rock surface she was standing on collapsed and plummeted her 10 meters to the ground. She suffered fractures and internal injuries in the fall. With referenced to the provisions of the Civil Liability Act of 2003 (Qld), the council had neglected to care for its customers such as Nerla. Hence, the cases had legal issues that demand the application of the Act. Rocky Shire Council failed to warn all the visitors, including Nerla, of the possible consequences when climbing wet rocky surfaces, making them liable to compensate Nerla for the sufferings she sustained. The case is relevant in a court of law since Nerla did not receive any warnings from the park management based on the consequences of climbing the rock. Law The Civil Liability Act 2003 limits claims from affected parties. Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 requires consumers of goods and services to be well taken care of during consumption. Nerla did not receive appropriate care during her tour of the park. This entitles her to sue Rocky Shire Council according to Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 ACT 562. Application The negligence of Rocky Shire Council to warn and care for her customers caused Nerlas accident. She could not walk for six months neither could she engage in her career as a teacher. Besides, the condition forced her to take no pay for six months forcing her to engage in an online gambling habit where she lost $30,000 at Texas Holdem poker. All these suffering came along since Rocky did not care for Nerla during her stay at the park, necessitating her to participate in unscrupulous behaviours. Based on Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562, the park officials were irresponsible by failing to give the significance of their services to Nerla. Hence, they breached the customer care Act that is punishable and subject to a court of law. Issue Nerla proved she suffered damage given the breach of duty by Rocky Shire Council management. The special damages that Nerla suffered are stipulated under Public Liability Act 2003(CLA) that includes medical expenses and physical harms while general damages under CLA entailed pain and suffering accompanied by loss of earnings. Special and general pains of Nerla as outlined under the CLA, subject Rocky Shire Council to legal procedures leading to compensating Nerla of the suffered damages (Clarkson, 2011). Law The Civil Liability Act 2003 (old) (CLA) and the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) are the relevant laws to Nerlas case involving various relevant laws based on consumer care. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) requires an extension of obligations in case of negligence like in Nerla’s case. Rocky Shire Council did not care to warn Nerla of the dangers, hence, making them liable for punishment based on CLA Act 2003. The Council breached its duties of customer protection and cared forcing the legality of CLA to take necessary procedures in developing a case that makes the council liable in a court of law. Application Chapter 1, Part 2 of the application of the CLA, section 5 applies to any civil claim relating to damages and harm. Nerla suffered general and specific damages developing the relevance of section 5, of the Civil Liability Act. In addition, provisions under the Act are applicable since it was a breach of duty by the officials in the park to ensure that all clients are protected from potential dangers within the park. Therefore, the application of CLA Act in Nerla’s case is relevant in developing legal procedures to sue Rocky Shire Council for breach of duty. Issue Nerla suffered significant financial losses that enable the application of Donoghue v. Stevenson. The financial losses that Nerla suffered included loss of money on gamble loss. During her visit to the park, she suffered injuries that disrupted her economic activity (teaching). All these financial losses fall under Donoghue v. Stevenson case as the most relevant law in the development of an argument between Nerla and Rocky Shire County. Law Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 all ER Rep 1; 1932 AC 562; House of Lords case actions in the recovery of the defective performance of contract is relevant to Nerla’s case (Law School Case Briefs, 2013). Application Nerla’s complaints are related to the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson because of the economic losses Nerla suffered following her tragic visit experiences at the park. Consideration of Donoghue v. Stevenson case promotes the development of the modern law of negligence established through neighbour tests. In addition, the law articulates negligence as liability of manufacturers to consumer based on examples of foods that cause harm to health. The health of Nerla suffered significantly because following negligence of officials in Rocky Shire County. Issue The law provides that care providers must practice attractive maintenance to prevent service users from future injuries. An employee suffers charges of criminal negligence in a considerable degree of disregard and recklessness for consequences of 24 Crimes Act under The Wrongs Act 1958. The general legal principles of negligence experienced, in this case, include personal injuries, medical negligence, economic loss and omissions. Law Clarkson (2011) argues that focusing on the common law, the principles of negligence and Wrong Act 1958 amendments to the law of Negligence Act 2003 Civil liability action and Donoghue v Stevenson cases directly apply to Nerlas case. Based on legal principles and focusing on Personal injuries, an injured person requires compensation depending on the magnitude of the damage. However, the negligence systems support if there is an efficient method of delivering compensation to the victims. It contributed to the negligence of the officials at Rocky Shire County to take care of Nerla while at the park making her suffer personal injuries because of negligence. Application Medical negligence is dropping out the overall cost of claims that rises since various ways develop on the management of damages. Legal principles that focus on medical negligence have necessary skills that specialize in different areas of compensation. According to Nerla’s case, medical negligence as a legal principle gives her an opportunity to claim for compensation. Moreover, Civil Liability Act 2003 entail as one of the legal laws that Nerla has to build on when claiming for compensation since it is based on particular loss resulting from physical injury. Legal principle basing facts on economic loss emanates from the case since Nerla suffered significant financial losses such as failed earnings from her work as a teacher and medical charges. Issue Civil liability statutes provide for contributory negligence that competes for defense. However, some jurisdictions that contributed to indifference reduce the amount of damages recoverable in the claim. According to Rocky Shire County, the park management demonstrated high levels of negligence by not taking precautions and warning visitors of the dangers’ the slippery rocks posed. Consequently, their negligence contributed to significant damages experienced by Nerla, causing her special and general damages. The sufferings sustained by Nerla, are subject to hearing in the court of law under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Queensland Law Society, 2013). The law states negligence is contrary to the legal principles governing the normal activities of humans; hence, Nerlas case was subject to hearing and claim for compensation (Clarkson, 2011). Law Donoghue v Stevenson case brought into light the consequences of negligence. The law states that manufacturers need to protect consumers from potential dangers associated with services and goods as their sole duty in their operations. The principal laws that affect committed negligence when dealing with cases include Civil Liability Act 2003 (Old), s 24 and Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5 (s) (NSW Legislation, 2011). Application The application of the law directly affects the case of Nerla since Rocky Shire Park officials failed guarantee safety to Nerla. They are, therefore, liable to the sufferings that Nerla sustained. She is legally justifiable for compensation Conclusion Negligence contributes to significant losses and damages that project adverse effects to businesses. Business owners need to take charge by protecting their clientele and ensuring they enjoy their services. They need to warn their clients in case of any dangers toward avoiding consequences like compensation and development of cases in law courts. References Clarkson, K. W. (2011). Study guide for Clarkson/Cross/Millers business law: Text and cases - legal, ethical, global, and corporate environment. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Law School Case Briefs. (2013, February 20). Donoghue v Stevenson case brief summary [1932] AC 562. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/02/donoghue-v-stevenson-case-brief.html NSW Legislation. (2011). Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforcepdf/2002-22.pdf?id=5e88bb05-5ac9-6ed8-ccbf-eaca0a94aa7f Queensland Law Society. (2013). Civil Liability Act 2003. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/CivilLiabA03.pdf South Australia. (2013). Civil Liability Act 1936. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/CIVIL%20LIABILITY%20ACT%201936/CURRENT/1936.2267.UN.PDF Read More