Question 1
Issue
Western Tiger’s first grade Rugby Football player Daniel was attacked by Jack and Bronco of Parramatta Storm Rugby League Club while carrying the ball forward during a friendly game against themselves. Daniel was lifted in a dangerous position causing him to fall head first to the ground. This type of attack is known as “spear tackle”. At the peak of his career Daniel, was forced to retire due to severe injury caused to him. Both Jack and Bronco have pleaded guilty to the charges against them.
Law
The situation that has been evident in the case is that the football match between two parties have resulted in a serious injury of Daniel what made him to sit back at the peak of his career. However, as the case has been described before is that there must be intrusion of legal solutions as an act of negligence has been shown in this case. The case where the two players (from Parramatta Storms Rugby League Club) can be abducted for the act of providing injury to Daniel under the law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008 (Anantharaman, Pittman and Wans, 2016). This act has been enforced within the Australian legal system and can be put into stances if damage is caused to the sufferer. Here, the plaintiff that is Daniel has been caused the harm due to fall on the ground with the head contacting first the ground is seen as a matter of negligence and is liable to be penalized under the section 54 under law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008 (Raikes and McBean, 2016). The act of negligence also states that in case of conduction of any such act of negligence that has a foreseeable risk of injuring the plaintiff without any prior precaution taken is to be allegedly applied to the court.
Application
The application of the law that is law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008 specified certain areas of grounds that are important for imposing the act in particular situation or case. Under the law, it has been stated that the act is not applicable in certain circumstances where there would be voluntary assumption of the risk. Therefore, this kind of situation is not similar to the stated case. In the case the unique facts that have been specified are:
• The act was voluntarily done against Daniel with aim to cause injury
• The injury was fatal due to landing of the body in the ground after lifting by the head (Ausness, 2018)
• No such precaution was taken in this stance in order to prevent such damage or injury to the person
• And lastly, a damage or injury, either fatal or minor was foreseen before committing the act
Therefore, these areas are highly acceptable in terms of defining the guilt of the defendants associated with the case.
Certain similar stances have been shown in different cases. In the case between Winnote Pty Ltd v Page a similar case of negligence has been highlighted where a non-negligible cause has been provided for the injury of the plaintiff (Kramer, Kinn & Mishkind, 2015). Therefore, the situation is similar where the court has sued the defendant by the law, to be guilty, for committing the act of negligence and bringing harm to the plaintiff.
Conclusion
Section 45 under the law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008 there has been stated provision of the situation that should be considered as the most important stature for consideration of the act of the defendants as liable to receive penalty. The situation is likely to be improbable in terms of providing penalty that is inclusive of developing a compensation for the injury that has been caused to the plaintiff. The compensation should be regulated as per the opportunity seeking for the fatality of the injury provided to the plaintiff (Jacob, Decker & Lugg, 2016). Therefore, in this case Daniel is liable to sought for legal proceedings in the court for the act of negligence that has been caused to him. However, the defendants do not stand ground that may provide them with legal defenses. Therefore, no legal defenses are available to them. it has been stated under the sub-section 1 of the law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008 that the court when finds the defendants guilty of committing the act of negligence causing any loss or injury to plaintiff that is fatal and could have been avoided, the defendant/s are liable to be put under legal proceedings. The penalties might be monetary compensation or as may the law suits liable.
Question 2
Issue
Harry, an engineer works in merchant bank lives with girlfriend Zara, a town planner in a rented flat from five years. In 2010, they thought of investing together, discussed this with work-mates and friends Steve, a commercial lawyer and George, a financial advisor, and concluded to invest in real estate. However, Steve mentioned about the rumors that taxes can be increased by Federal Capital Gains. Hilary, Zara’s mother together borrowed $650,000 from bank, bought a property at Parramatta, and rented to some students from UWS. Hilary bought another property and rented that too with her savings without any financial advice for extra cash (Hughes, Champion & Murdoch, 2015). In 2012, due to mini budget imposed by New South Wales government land taxes increased on invested properties which in resulted in collapsing of Sydney’s property market. Now property value was decreased by 80% due to which Hilary is clinically depressed due to stress.
Law
The case as has been stated is eligible to state that there are concerns in this case about development of the knowledge where there is liability to invest in real estate business. Here, the concerns of the party that is Harry, Zara and Hilary regarding the development of the investment business has been indicated towards certain act of negligence that has been found to be done on the part of the sufferers. Under the law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008, it has been stated that a case of negligence is liable to be considering the impacts on any act that has been resultantly caused due to the stances of negligence (Beletsky, LaSalle, Newman, Paré, Tam & Tochka, 2015). Here, the situation states that the Harry, Zara and Hilary has sued for the suggestion to get into the investment business from two of his friends Steve and Gorge who are commercial lawyer and financial advisor by profession respectively. However, the area that has to be highlighted in this case, that there is no presence of stances of negligence on the part of the advisory session that has been produced by Steve and George. Therefore, in the case it should be mentioned that they are not at default to deliver misinformation to Harry for the business. Therefore, the act of negligence where no misstatement is seen on the part of the advisors as the relevant information has been provided to harry on the perspective of investment. Hence, under the act of negligence Harry, Zara and Hilary has no right to be exercised against Steve and George.
Application
The application of the law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008 states that neither Steve nor George is not liable for the failure of the business that Harry had started with his two partners. Under the division 6 of the law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008, it has been stated that the defendant is not liable to be sued legally in case of any liability that is based on a non-delegable duty (Wonkka, Rogers & Kreuter, 2015). Therefore, the application of the law states that there are certain induced aspects where it has to be determined whether the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence that has been shown by the plaintiffs. Hence, here it has been found that two persons who have advised Harry and his partners in business were not liable for this negligence that has resulted in loss of harry and his partners in the real estate business.
Conclusion
The case here shows certain stances of negligence in the part of conducting operations that are liable to develop certain actions on the part of the advisor who has provided the advice to harry and his business partners about the investment business in the real estate industry. This case can be sued under the law of Negligence and Limitation of Liability Act of 2008 where the liability of the defendants can be explained through liability based in the non-delegable duty (Hughes, Champion & Murdoch, 2015). Therefore, Harry and his two business partners that is Zara and Hilary do not have any right to sue Harry’s friends Steve and George. This is because the law states that no enforcement of legal stature can be done against any such advisor who does owe liability that is based on not delegable duty. A similar case between Edwards v Jordan can be shown as an example that does not rely on the terms of developing legal charges on the defendants in such cases.
References
Anantharaman, D., Pittman, J.A. and Wans, N., 2016. State liability regimes within the United States and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review, 91(6), pp.1545-1575.
Ausness, R. C. (2018). Sailing under False Colors: The Continuing Presence of Negligence Principles in Strict Products Liability Law. U. Dayton L. Rev., 43, 265.
Beletsky, L., LaSalle, L., Newman, M., Paré, J., Tam, J., and Tochka, A. (2015). Fatal re-entry: legal and programmatic opportunities to curb opioid overdose among individuals newly released from incarceration. NEULJ, 7, 149.
Hughes, W., Champion, R., and Murdoch, J. (2015). Construction contracts: law and management. Routledge.
Jacob, S., Decker, D. M., and Lugg, E. T. (2016). Ethics and law for school psychologists. John Wiley & Sons.
Kramer, G. M., Kinn, J. T., and Mishkind, M. C. (2015). Legal, regulatory, and risk management issues in the use of technology to deliver mental health care. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 22(3), 258-268.
Raikes, J. and McBean, G., 2016. Responsibility and liability in emergency management to natural disasters: A Canadian example. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 16, pp.12-18.
Wonkka, C. L., Rogers, W. E., and Kreuter, U. P. (2015). Legal barriers to effective ecosystem management: exploring linkages between liability, regulations, and prescribed fire. Ecological applications, 25(8), 2382-2393.
Page 8 of 8