Question 1
With the effects of all the damages Brad has had undergone, there are many valid reasons to why he has basis for a legal action against Syntac, the company who manufactured the hockey stick Brad was using during the incident and Patrick the person who quickly pulled the stick out of Brad’s arm causing damages to be even more severe.
Katherine
Brad does not have a serious case against Katherine due to the fact that she took many precautions to avoid any possible lawsuit. For instance, the owner of the facility, Katherine, admitted that she was aware of the condition of the floor and that’s why she had put a policy in only allowing registered players to play. The owner had made all players who wanted to register to look around and examine the facility and sign a waiver releasing her from all liability. She wanted to make sure all players participating knew there were many spots in the synthetic surface that would result in tripping. With this policy, Brad does not have a basis of legal action against the owner for knowingly allowing players to play on those unsafe conditions. Also, since Brad was not a registered player, and was playing under another name, he was trespassing. The owner had placed a sign in the parking lot stating only registered player were allowed to participate and play in the facility knowing many previous teams have attempted to improperly substitute players from time to time. Katherine had taken many steps to make sure she is not considered liable for any kinds of negligence, or occupier’s liability. Therefore, Brad, has no basis of legal action against the owner of the facility due to the fact players were supposed to be registered and sign a waiver releasing the owner from any liability. Also, with Brad not abiding these procedures and ignoring the signs posted he was trespassing, and the owner of the facility cannot be held responsible for the damages that were caused. Katherine did not owe any duty of care towards Brad as he was not supposed to be present in the facility, therefore could not have breached the standard of care.
Syntac
Brad has a basis for legal action against Syntac because of product liability. Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although Syntac did notify retailers that would replace any broken stick with evidence of bubbling, the company did not make any attempt to notify customers. The company has had experienced many problems with bubbling of the resin that is used to make the sticks which made them weaker and easier to break, yet they continued selling them. Syntac has not taken any steps to avoid the bubbling of the hockey sticks and continue pushing their product to retailers. If the company is not even going to attempt to solve the problem, they should at least have a system set in place which does not allow any stick that can be potentially affected with bubbling going to market. They haven’t even made an attempt to warn any customers about the dangers and the quality of the hockey sticks. In this situation, Brad has a base for legal action because Syntac’s hockey sticks do not come with the proper warnings of the manufacturing defects that make it hazardous, which led to his injuries. Brad can sue Syntac and claim compensation for his medical bills and other expenses.
Erica
Brad does not have a strong basis for legal action against Erica as when you engage in a physical sport such as hockey, injuries are bound to happen. When athletes play violent sports such as hockey, they consent to a certain level of violence. As long as players stay within the reasonable and expected levels of violence in the sport, it is rare they will ever be criminally charged. Hooking is a very common penalty in the sport of hockey and Is considered a minor, although Erica hooked Brad which caused him to fall and get severely injured, she was well in the acceptable range for what can be expected in the sport of hockey. As long as she does not do anything absurd, she cannot be criminally charged for assault or battery. Criminal charges resulting from on-ice behaviour are rare. Although there may be some occasions where a hockey player has gotten charged, it is usually for an illegal hit. For example, in the case of Tom Bertuzzi, a former NHL player, who sucker punched his opponent in the head from behind. This hit was deemed to not be in the acceptable range for what can be expected, and he was convicted with criminal assault causing bodily harm. This case differs from Erica’s as what she did would just be considered a minor penalty in the sport for hooking, which is a very common penalty. There may have been no consent given verbally to each other, but they can still physically touch each other, as there is implied consent that they are playing hockey and it can be violent. Erica’s past encounters with these penalties have no effect on Brad’s case.
Patrick
Brad has a basis for legal action against Patrick with negligence. Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person. The plaintiff must prove the four steps necessary in proving negligence. Which consists of duty of care, the standard of care, damage and causation. Firstly, with the first requirement of a duty of care, there is a close relationship between the parties, Patrick and Brad, that one could foresee that carelessness on one’s part might cause harm to another. With Patrick pulling the stick out of Brad he should have known that would only make it worse. Secondly, with the second requirement of the standard of care, if a regular person was in Patrick’s position they would have called for medical attention and let them take the proper procedures for taking the stick out with the least possible damages. If Patrick had just called for medical attention first, Brad’s arm possibly would not have had to been amputated. Thirdly, with the third requirement of damage, Patrick’s negligence was one of the main reasons Brad’s arm had to be amputated. Patrick’s neglect will give Brad general damages (pain and suffering) and special damages (medical costs, lost wages, future care cost, etc.). Lastly, with the final requirement of causation, it uses the “But for” test to see if the negligent act of the defendant would have occurred anyway or if it would have been avoided. If Patrick waited for the paramedics to arrive there would have been trained doctors doing their due diligence to see what the correct procedure would be to perform on Brad. This would give Brad a chance to save his arm from the amputation caused by Patrick’s negligence.
In conclusion, Brad would have a basis for legal action against only Syntac and Patrick. With Syntac he can sue for product liability and with Patrick, he can sue for negligence. Both Katherine and Erica do not have a strong basis for legal action against them. With Katherine’s strict policies she has already enforced and with Erica’s incident being a cause of the violent nature of the sport of hockey it would be very difficult to press charges against them. Although with the hopeful results of the lawsuits Syntac would be able to compensate Brad for a lot of the expenses as they are a large corporation and Patrick would still be able to compensate Brad for some of the remaining expenses as well.
Question 2
Plaintiff
Sally, the plaintiff, claims that Andrew Weston, her father had breached the contract between them. The contract in question claims that Andrew promised her that he would not sell the company without first allowing her to match any offer. The plaintiff believes she was not given a fair opportunity to match the six million dollars offered by Monolithic Computers. Sally emailed the accountant and requested the offer remain open until October 11, to where the accountant agreed. Sally claims that she was ready to accept the offer for five million dollars on the agreed upon date but did not have the opportunity as an agreement had been reached to sell to Monolithic. The plaintiff believes this is a clear breach of contract and has impacted her future endeavours as she has given up numerous business opportunities over the years thinking she would acquire Weston Computers.
Defendant
Andrew Weston, the defendant claims, he had no binding legal obligation or agreement with Sally. The defendant can state the contract the plaintiff is referring to is a gratuitous promise. When a party makes a promise to another, either within or outside the context of a contract, where that promise places an obligation on the party but where that party does not receive anything in return. then the promise is said to be gratuitous. This can be seen as a gratuitous promise because Sally is not offering anything in return for the opportunity to match any offer Weston Computers receives. The defendant can argue since this is only a gratuitous promise, it is not a contract. Therefore, Sally cannot file a lawsuit for breach of contract against Andrew Weston.
In conclusion, if this lawsuit proceeded, the plaintiff would most likely lose. Andrew Weston has valid explanations of why they have not broken any laws. Since there was no actual contract in the first place, the defendant had no binding legal obligation to satisfy any of the plaintiff’s needs.