Unification of Tort Law - Contributory Negligence - Assignment Example

Law Name; Professor: College: Course: Date: The plaintiff is a minor by the name Azaria who has innocently gone to the field to play. The Grampian playground is nature play ground where children work and play. Since the park is meant for playing, Azaria took her vortex ball to play in the Playground. However, Azaria was not attacked while at the playground. Azaria was attacked at the nearby bush when she went to look for her vortex ball. In as much as the management of the playground in question has not given notice regarding the dangers associated with the Kangaroos, they had given notice to the management of the park to cull the kangaroos. As she plays in the playfield, Azaria’s ball goes to the bush, picking the ball from the bush is a necessity. Again, Azaria, though, a minor has not been informed by the part management that the Kangaroos are around the place and are likely to cause harm. There is no any sign warning the children to take caution of the dangers involved in the playing in the field. The management of the park has deliberately failed to put a caution in the field so that the users of the playground can be caution about the Kangaroos. From the age of the child, we can deduce that Azaria was a minor that ought to have been given directions and appropriate perceptional measures. However, the management of the playground has entirely failed to disclose this information to the users of the field. It is said that the plaintiff was not aware of the dangers of the Kangaroos in the field. The cases of death of children are not new to the management of the playground. It is believed and proven from the ground that the management of the Grampian playground was aware of the nature and the conditions of the risks involved in the scene. Out of the records, a time like this when the kangaroos are breeding, six children had died from the attacks by the Kangaroos. The steps undertaken by the management were meant to cull the kangaroos, but that did not mean that the children would not be informed about the risks. The management was even supposed to give the children with the right security while going to the field. It was the responsibility and the duty{"status":"TOOLBAR_READY","toolbarId":206720000} of the management to give their clients the best security ever when they enter the field as they play. The Grampian council seemingly has also negligently left the kangaroos to interfere with the personal lives of individuals outside the park. Azaria is a third party in this case. The Grampian council ought to have been responsible for taking into account the safety of people about the kangaroos. The kangaroos seem to become a nuisance to the general public. Both the Grampian council the playground management negligently abscond their duty Contributory negligence However, Azaria has also contributed to the negligence of the occurrence of the risk. It is worth noting that Azaria has moved from the playground to the bushes to look for her ball. She ought to have stuck to the playground. Assuming that Azaria had not gone to the forest, the Kangaroo would not have attacked her. It is the season of the breeding of the kangaroos and at this time the kangaroos tend to be very aggressive especially on the children. Azaria moves to the forest to pick her ball yet this seems to be an inflicting act to the kangaroo. However, ignorance is not a defense in the court of law. The plaintiff ignorantly goes where the kangaroo is and gets attacked. Had he remained in his the playground, he wouldn’t have been attacked by the kangaroo. The plaintiff Steps were taken by the playground management The playground management has done their little best by informing the Grampian council about the need to cull the kangaroos (Klar, 1995, 24). The kangaroos have injured six children in the recent past. History can tell us that the management could not easily disclose these facts due to their materialism. Such information would have impacted negatively on their business, so they kept it to them. The information regarding the insecurity ion the field was more likely to make the firm loose most of their customers as telling them that that is kangaroos would mean telling them to keep off the playground. Question 2 The information indicates that the management was taken its step by reporting the case to the recommended council. By reporting the case, the playground shifts the blame on negligence from them to the council. It is worth noting that the playground management is also vulnerable to the kangaroos. It is the council that has the mandate to take care of the kangaroos. The council has the duty of taking care of the general public from the negative things associated with the animals. In conclusion, Azaria will win the case. There is negligence in both the playground management and the council. The management has terribly failed to disclose to disclose to the victim the risk associated with the kangaroos. Seemingly, the playground management feels if they disclose the information to the clients they will lose them. They, therefore, refuse to disclose the information that would have been very vital to Azaria. The management has very few defenses that can enable them handle the case. The defense that says that ignorance is not a defense used by the plaintiff holds no water (Magnus, et al. 2003, 34). This is not an adequate defense for the case since the plaintiff is a minor that ought not to have been given direction and guidance to the management. Azaria is a minor who does not even understand the risks involved in coming close to the kangaroo (Milner, 1967, 45). When the management says that they have informed the council about culling, they fail to protect the children playing. Thus is negligence of the highest order and they are likely to lose the case. Moreover, the council has also negligently left the kangaroos to interfere with the peace of the public. They have been informed by the management of the playground to cull the kangaroos yet they still hesitate to lead to more injuries. BIBLIOGRAPHY KLAR, L., & RAINALDI, L. D. (1995). Negligence. Scarborough, Ont, Carswell. MAGNUS, U., MARTÍN-CASALS, M., & BOOM, W. H. V. (2003). Unification of tort law: contributory negligence. New York, Kluwer Law International. (2011). Charlesworth & percy on negligence. [S.l.], Sweet & Maxwell. MILLNER, M. A. (1967). Negligence in modern law. London, Butterworths. Read More