Introduction to Business Law - Case Study Example

Heading: Introduction to Business Law Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Explain how this scenario relates to an area of law taught in Introduction to Business Law. This scenario involves torts law that entails civil proceedings between parties. In this case, the parties involved are Mike (the potential plaintiff) and a concert organizer (the potential defendant). This case has the principal tort as the tort of negligence. This is because Mike alleges that the concert organizer at Parramatta Park had been negligent in allowing the practice of ‘crowd surfing’ in the ‘mosh pit’. As a result of the negligence, Mike, the plaintiff had suffered broken ribs and spinal injuries. Moreover, the plaintiff’s family had incurred damages of three-month hospital bill. Mike is, therefore, seeking monitory compensation as per the tort laws. If Mike sues the organizers of the concert, what are the legal elements of the action that Mike must prove in order to establish the case? In action of the tort of negligence, Mike needs to establish the following elements: Firstly, Mike must prove to the court of law, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the concert organizer owed it a duty of care.1 This implies that Mike should prove that it is reasonably foreseeable that the concert organizer’s negligence would cause harm to anyone in the plaintiff’s position. Moreover, the case must possess prominent features that are constant with the duty of care. In the proceedings of this case, the court will consider all the relevant factors that include whether liability is explicit and determinate.2 Secondly, Mike must prove the defendant has committed a breach of duty. This implies that the concert organizer has not acted up to the required standards of care that any reasonable person would have in such as situation.3 These are the standards that if they would have, otherwise been met, the harm caused on the plaintiff would have been avoided. Besides, in this case, the risk should have also been foreseeable so that the plaintiff may argue that the standards of care were really neglected. According to the Australian tort law, necessitates that the standard of care is determined by the amount of risk that causes harm, seriousness and probability of the harm, and the burden of taking precautionary measures.4 It is also measured by the social function of the practice that caused the risk of harm. Therefore, the plaintiff must prove that the omissions and actions of the defendant posed an unreasonable risk towards other persons, which caused harm. Thirdly, in this case, Mike must prove that the concert organizer breach of his duty has resulted in provable loss, and that the liability scope, in the Australian law, covers the concert organizer.5 Moreover, the plaintiff should demonstrate that his claims for damages are not remote, and that the loss was an unpredictable consequence of concert organizer’s actions and omissions.6This implies that the loss or injuries sustained by the plaintiff have enough proximity between him and the concert organizer.7 Fourthly, in order to succeed in this case against the concert organizer, Mike should prove that omissions and actions of the defendant are responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Mike. This can be determined by asking the jury about the possibility of the occurrence prior to or without the defendant’s breach of duty owed to the plaintiff. Therefore, the breaching party (concert organizer) can be charged for the amount of harm that he caused the injured party (Mike). What are the legally important facts that Mike would use to support his legal action in the scenario? The legal facts that are exclusive dates and used in proving or disproving elements of negligence are as follows: The concert organizer had brought performance to the Parramatta Park. The concert organizer had placed tight security in the arena, and a warning against ‘crowd surfing’. The plaintiff is complaining about the damages caused to the brother, Mike who was attending the concert at the park. Mike is a 17-year old boy who has been to many concerts and knows that crowd surfing is risky. Lisa is Mike’s girlfriend who accompanied him to the concert. She even pointed out to him that crowd sourcing is not permitted, but he ignored her. These facts are used to determine whether the concert organizer is responsible for the injuries sustained by Mike. In the course of the concert performance, some patrons are crowd surfed despite the notice on the entrance. These patrons are also received by the security men, and directed back to the crowd without any legal action; hence encouraging some of the spectators to take practice crowd surfing. Besides, at some point, security guards in the arena removed some spectators who were involved in the aggressive practice. However, they allow the practice to go on in the arena. These facts may be used to prove the concert’s organizer’s negligence. What defenses might the organizers have available to them in response to Mike’s allegation? In their defense, the concert organizers can argue that Mike has committed a contributory negligence and that he is responsible for a section of the damages caused. They may base their argument on the fact that they had issued a warning at the entrance against crowd surfing. Besides, the organizers might argue that they had not breached their duty against the plaintiff. Here, their argument could be supported by the fact that they had placed adequate security who had even removed persons with aggressive behavior from the concert. Moreover, the defense party could argue that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff had no proximity with them, in that their actions did not directly cause the harm.8 Furthermore, concert organizers can argue that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risk of his actions by ignoring the warning placed at the entrance. What could the organizers do to avoid or minimize liability in similar situations? The concert organizers should ensure that the security staff hired performs its duties appropriately. This implies that they should not allow any spectator to practice crowd sourcing regardless of their position. It is vital that the organizers ensure that they are conversant with risk management skills. These will ascertain that even though they owe another person a duty of care, they have to meet the standards of care.9 Letter instructing a solicitor Dear [solicitor], I write on behalf of Mike (my brother), a 17 year-old boy, to seek your advice and if necessary, legal assistance. We have just written to the Parramatta Park concert organizers seeking compensation for the spinal and rib injuries that Mike suffered in the course of the concert. We have also suffered financial damages in form of hospital bills for the three-month admission and rehabilitation. Outline of relevant facts Mike is a 17- year old boy who went to the concert just like any other teenager. The outdoor rock concert took place at the Parramatta Park and was a free event that almost 20,000 people attended. When the bands are playing, there are between 2000 and 3000 people crowding in the ‘mosh pit’. In such concerts, people engage in a risky practice called crowd surfing. In relation to that, the concert organizers put in place security staff that would control the crowds from entering the stage. They are also charged with the responsibility of removing individuals who are involved in the aggressive behavior. The organizers have also issued a warning against crowd surfing. However, some patrons are seen crowd surfing in the concert, and the security staff merely returns them to the crowd without any legal action. In addition, the security staff allows the continuation of the practice. Late in the afternoon, my brother (Mike) decides to show his girlfriend, Lisa how crowd surfing is done. Despite her warning, Mike assures her about its safety. In the process, Mike falls and suffers concussion, spinal and rib injuries because the security staff takes long to rescue him from the stampede. Recently, we wrote to the concert organizers seeking compensation for the damages caused. Our view Mike is not liable for the injuries because he thought that crowd surfing is safe. His mere intention was to show and please his girlfriend. Moreover, despite the warning, Mike noted that the practice was allowed in the arena. This is evidenced by the fact that some patrons were ‘crowed surfed’ and received by the security staff who merely directed them back to the crowd. Additionally, the security staff placed in the arena was incompetent as it took long to rescue him from the stampede. Therefore, the fact that it took ten minutes to rescue Mike is a confirmation of its contributory negligence. Summarize the possible defenses and arguments in response to your claim, which can be expected from the organizers. The concert organizers may argue that Mike committed contributory negligence since they had issued a warning at the entrance. Therefore, they might assert that Mike just ignored the warning. Consequently, we might be penalized for the negligence; hence compelled to cost-share the damages incurred. Moreover, the organizers could argue they had not committed any breach of duty against Mike. In terms of damages, the concert organizers could argue that damages caused are not directly related to their activities. We will appreciate your legal advice on this matter. If need arises, we will request that you represent us in all stages. In case of any enquiries or clarifications, please contact me. Yours Sincerely, Jason (Mike’s Brother) A graduate of University of Eastern Sydney For and on behalf of Mike. References Clark Eugene, Cho George, & Hoyle Arthur, Cyber law in Australia. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands Frederick, MD: Kluwer Law International Sold and distributed in North, Central, and South America (2010). Gillies Peter, Business law (2004). Goodwin Michele & Richardson Song, ‘Patient Negligence’ (2009) 72 Law and Contemporary Problems. Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B. Ramlogan Rajendra, Commonwealth Caribbean business law (2010). See Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 per Lord Atkin. Woodford Kelly Collins & Woodford, Thomas J., 2005, ‘Sudden-onset Harassment: Negligence or Strict Liability?’ (2005) 56 Labor Law Journal. Read More