Solicitor Seeking Advisory Services in Mikes Case - Assignment Example

Business Law Name: Course: Tutor: Date: QUESTION 1 This subject deals with the study of law and the effects of law in businesses and business people. It looks at how law can be advantageous or hindrance to a business therefore gives business people the knowledge of legal issues to avoid getting into the wrong side of the law. The course also gives directions of the legal requirements of the business and what to do and how to do it when it gets to a legal problem. This incident is very relevant to this course because it has the matters of legal obligations compliance of a business where there is a law requirement to avoid risking members of the public and employees’ health and welfare, Occupational Health Safety and Welfare (OHS&W) Act, (1986). There is also the legal problem of Mike’s incident which he wants compensation for the injuries suffered. QUESTION 2 Mike had attended a concert at Parramatta Park, in attendance were over two thousand people. In a crowd that was so vigorous there were only ten security men against over two thousand participants. This coupled with the fact the security men were ill prepared for rescue purposes is evidence that the organizing team was not minded on the safety of the crowd. The fact that crowd surfing was a common event here and that many people had crowd surfed before; including Mike proves that nobody bothered to stop anyone from crowd surfing. The post of warning against crowd surfing was just a written statement that was not seriously observed, since nobody took a deliberate move to stop it. This did not happen even after several injuries had been reported. Mike should use the injuries suffered during the incident as evidence against the organizing team. This coupled with the fact that the boy was not rescued at the right time amount to failure on the side of the organizing team to fulfil its mandate of ensuring safety of the patrons, employees and other participants in the event as required by the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act of 1986. In the case Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC562 increased the scope of safety to include all those prone to the risk of forecasted danger upon omission. If this scope is taken, Mike should be included as he was within the boundaries of scope of subjectivity to danger upon entering the scene even before he participated in the act. The organizing ought to have known his presence was a civil liability and would not have gone ahead to neglecting the duty of not only Mike but also any other member of the public to engage in crowd surfing. All these will meet the conditions needed for compensation according to the law of negligence supposes that there must be a party with a duty to care, the entity which was to care neglected the party to be cared for and therefore the giving an opportunity the injury to occur. The occurrence of the injury is therefore traceable back to negligence. QUESTION 3 Mike the 7 years old boy owed organizing team of the concert held in Parramatta Park a duty of care. The organizing team did not fulfil its requirements for the citizen of Australia of offering sufficient security. Mike fall into the mosh and was injured, this can be attributed to the organizing team’s failure to accomplish its responsibility of ensuring safety for those in attendance. The Civil Liability Act 1936 s 17 required the organizing team to have reacted to the boy’s engaging in crowd surfing to denying him the act in a deliberate and prompt action. This would have exempted them from the civil liability. The fact that the crowds were moshing in a mosh pit at Parramatta Park, was a clear indication that crowd surfing risk was at its height. There was a large post that that read ‘crowd surfing is not permitted ’. Mike had seen the post ’crowd surfing is not permitted’ but went ahead to crowd surf since crowd surfing was a common practice at the place. Other incidences of crowd surfing and injuries associated with them had been reported in the past. QUESTION 4 On the side of the organizers of the event, they might defend themselves in the direction of Agar v Hyde (2000) case where the court thought that since International Rugby Football (IRFB) had done its part in creating rules for game and that the rules were for players, claiming that injuries are common even with proper regulations in place, some do not observe them, if at this point they equate the referee who fail to uphold the IRFB to Mikes case claiming that the referee will not be judged for failure to enforce a certain rules. This will definitely be the base assumption that Mike irresponsibility to adhere to the post writings resulted to his problem. Mike knew the notice was there and ignored the massage. They can argue that they performed their duty of ensuring safety the members of the public in advance and therefore free from the blame of neglecting responsibility. QUESTION 5 The organizers of such an event in future should therefore adhere to the acceptable levels of safety for its patrons laid down as laid down by the Civil Liability Act, 1936). Construct a security pit which should prevent people from being crushed against the stage. There should be a means of entry to the mosh pit as well as a good exit from the moss pit. Sufficient rules and regulation should be enacted and enforced to see into it that crowd surfing is minimised or done away with altogether. In a situation agreed that crowd surfing should continue, a security team trained to rescue persons from being injured during crowd surfing should be in watch to make sure that the victims of such circumstances are rescued to safety fast and therefore ensure that they do not suffer major injuries or prevent any fatal occurrences. Public addresses should also be set in place for communication purposes. This will help communicate to people in the event of an accident to avoid fallen people from crush of moving mosh. First aid station, first aid kits and trained personnel should also be there to handle any emergency cases. If possible get a competent medical practitioner to attend the function. Good ground cover is recommended to minimise sliding and falling in mosh pit. Letter instructing a solicitor seeking advisory services in Mike’s case Dear sir/ madam, RE: SEEKING YOUR ADVISORY GUIDANCE IN A CASE I am writing to seek legal direction in a case of my brother who was injured during a concert. He is a seventeen year old boy. His name is Mike. He had attended an outdoor rock concert which was held in Parramatta Park. In the afternoon, he went crowd surfing, and accidentally fall in a moshing crowd. He broke his rib, suffered spinal injuries and concussion. In the “mosh” people jump up and down as they move and sway in a rhythm. In ‘crowd surfing,’ people are lifted in to the top of the crowd where they are passed forward lying down. On the edge of the crows security personnel catch them and direct them to walk along barrier and go into the crowd. The organizers of the event have placed a large sign which is written ‘crowd surfing is not permitted.’ However, it should be noted that in the past, there have been some incidences of injured persons which have been reported. Surfers demonstrating aggressive behaviours are sometimes remove in the course of the event but surfing is allowed to continue. Considering the dangers associated with the crowd surfing in a mosh bit, the organizing team should have taken an initiative to stop it or if it was to continue, make it safer for surfers. Failure to adhere to this amounts negligence of the duty which they are required provide by law. They are breaching the law of Civil Liability Act, 1936 Part 6, 8. He crowd surfing is common, apart from the notice that crowd serving is not permitted, it is allowed to continue, Mike himself testified that he had participated in the past and had known it to be safe. It is evident from this that crowd surfing is actually acceptable here because nobody bother to stop anyone from crowd surfing. The post of warning against crowd surfing was just a written statement that is not seriously adhered to since nobody took a deliberate move to stop people from crowd surfing. Past injuries reported should have been enough to prove that many people participate in crowd surfing which was dangerous for their safety. Mike suffered injuries during the incident and went through agonizing pains, he has been hospitalized for three months. I thought is important for the boy to be compensated by the organizing team of the event. I think this should be done considering pains and the injuries that the boy went through. My fear is if the organizing team of the event rise against Mike’s case and refuse to compensate him using the fact that the boy did it at his own risk. If the argue that they had placed a notice warning people against crowd surfing and therefore those who go against it were liable his own consequences. This might be very challenging especially considering the fact that Mike had seen the notice, and even if he had not, the notice was there for people to read. I hereby request you as an expert in legal issues to come handy in direction us on the course of action. Kindly write to us a letter explaining how to go about in handling this matter. In your advice explain if it is possible for Mike to sue the organizing team or the park management team. Try to include a comprehensive explanation on the course of action and the applicable laws and their interpretations. Kindly include all the facts that we must be able to gather in the process of preparing to sue this team if you will advise us to. This will help us in assessing the situation in comparison with the facts at hand that can be proved. Apart from this, you might also be required to stand on our behalf in court to advocate for the boys compensation. I therefore request you to collect all the facts and figure that might be required, we are willing to provide any other information you may require that is pertinent this cases. Kindly contact us when you find it necessary I look forward to receiving from you soon. Thank you in advance Yours faithfully (Signature) Jason References South Australia, (2002) Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986. Available from:http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/OCCUPATIONAL%20HEALTH%20SAFETY%20AND%20WELFARE%20ACT%201986.aspx [accessed on 26th August, 2011] Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC562 Australian Court of Appeal [online] Accessed from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/cla1936161/ http://profmadams.blogspot.com/2010/02/donoghue-v-stevenson-1932-snail-in.html (Accessed on 28th August, 2011) Australia, (1936), Civil Liability Act [Internet] Available from: (Accessed on 28th August, 2011) Agar v Hyde, (2000) International Rugby Football (IRFB) Case [online] Available from: http:// heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals (Accessed on 28th August, 2011) Read More