Solution Code: 1HAH
This assignment is related to ”Commercial Law” and experts atMy Assignment Services AUsuccessfully delivered HD quality work within the given deadline.
QUESTION:
Christine operates yoga classes from the Maleny Country Women’s Association (CWA) hall. Christine is a part-time yoga instructor. She conducts one Tuesday night class and one Thursday night class each week. Although she holds a Certificate IV in Yoga Instruction from the Australian Yoga Institute, her regular job is as a physical education teacher at a local high school. She doesn’t offer her yoga classes during school holidays. Christine operates as a sole trader and she hires the hall in her own name. She has no insurance.
Christine’s classes are very popular and well attended. Christine has 25 students in her Tuesday night class and an equal number of different students on Thursday night. Each student pays an upfront fee to Christine at the beginning of a course that lasts eight weeks to cover tuition and all associated costs.
The CWA hall was originally constructed as a dance hall for US service men in 1943. It is of timber construction with a highly polished hardwood floor. Christine limited the numbers of students because the hall is physically too small to accommodate any larger groups. Initially, Christine conducted classes of 35. However, she found that she was not able to effectively supervise the students and after a series of minor sprains and injuries sustained by various students, she limited class numbers to 25. She has had no problems with this smaller number of participants. However she does make special provision for the floor, which, because it is highly polished, is very slippery for yoga standing exercises.
Over time Christine has tried a number of strategies to overcome the slippery floor. She asked students to do the exercises standing on their exercise mats, but many found that they slipped on their mats. She purchased several large rolls of second hand carpet to put on the floor, but found that this approach added one hour to her time each class because she had to roll it out before and roll it up after each class. She asked the hall committee about laying vinyl flooring but the committee would not approve any change to the wooden floor because the building is heritage listed. Finally, to overcome the slipping problem, Christine purchased a large number of socks with rippled rubber soles. Christine gives these socks out to students at the beginning of each class, collects them at the end and takes them home to wash them before the next class.
Christine conducts each class alone and without assistance. She provides hot herbal tea and hot towels to students before and after the class on each night. The tea is heated in a large urn on a table against one wall of the hall adjacent to the exercise floor. The towels are heated in a steamer on the table next to the urn.
Three weeks ago, Christine was forced to cancel her Tuesday night class because of parent teacher night commitments at her high school. Some of the students from the Tuesday night class were disappointed and even asked for a partial refund of their tuition fees. Christine responded that any Tuesday night student who wished could attend the next Thursday night class.
On the following Thursday 35 students attended instead of the usual 25. The floor was very crowded. Christine prepared the tea and towels as usual. She also issued each student with their slippers with instruction that they must wear them. Christine never completely explained the reason for the slipper requirement but stressed that each student must wear them while on the floor.
Stella has attended Christine’s Thursday night class since this year’s classes began in early February. She arrived a few minutes late to this class because she had spent a few hours at an after work party where she consumed three glasses of wine. While the class had not yet begun, she was surprised to see so many participants. Stella couldn’t occupy her usual position at the front of the class. Instead, she found a small space very close to the tea and towel table. Stella decided to try to complete a class without wearing her slippers because she found that their orange colour clashed with her pink outfit.
Stella commenced exercising barefoot. She was the only student not to wear slippers. While performing the first posture, Stella’s left foot skidded into the leg of the table, toppling the urn and steamer onto her body. The hot tea, towels and appliances severely scolded her skin. Stella’s was hospitalised for six weeks and requires ongoing treatment. She may need plastic surgery for the scar tissue. She will also miss several months of work without pay. Christine visited Stella in hospital and apologised to her profusely.
Stella wishes to sue Christine in Negligence. Advise her.
CONTENT AND ANALYSIS
The content (or coverage of the topic) and analysis of your answer are assessed according to two general assessment criteria for legal analysis. These are:
The following guidelines stem from the assessment criteria stated above:
These assignments are solved by our professional commercial law assignment Expertsat My Assignment Services AU and the solution are high quality of work as well as 100% plagiarism free. The assignment solution was delivered within 2-3 Days.
Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.
There are two issues involved in the given scenario. Both the issues are resolved by analysing relevant law and case laws and applied to them individually.
Whether Stella has full right to sue Christine under the law of negligence?
In order to understand whether Christine is negligent or not, it is necessary that the law of negligence and its essentials are understood with the help of relevant case laws.
The law of negligence is an age old principle and which governs the actions of a defendant in such a manner so that no loss is caused because of his actions to any person who is closely attached to him. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) the duty of a manufacturer to protect his consumers was established by Lord Atkin and thus become the basis for the law of negligence. This duty was later extended to people in general. (Lawgovpool 2016)
However, whenever any plaintiff wants to sue the defendant under the law of negligence then there are few ingredients which must be established. The same are analysed as under: (LawVision 2008)
Once the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is considered to be proximate and the damage is reasonably foreseeable then the defendant is under the obligation of duty of care.
Thus, if all the elements are present then any defendant can be held liable under the law of negligence for the loss so caused to the plaintiff.
The law is now applied to the factual circumstances.
In order to hold Christine liable under the law of negligence it is necessary that it is established that there is duty of care which is imposed upon her which is violated by her and which has ultimately causes loss to Stella.
Thus, first task is to evaluate whether Christine has violated his duty to provided safe premises to Stella?
Christine was a part time Yoga teacher and commences classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays in a Hall. She used to take class of 35 students in the all but the hall was an old built of 1943 and does not have much capacity. There were previous injuries which are caused to her student’s berceuse she was not able to take care of them effectively. In order to avoid such losses she reduced the strength of her class to 25. Also, the floor of the hall was really slippery and all efforts to reduce the slipperiness of the floor were failures. The only solution that was found by her was that she provided replied rubber socks which is provided to the students at the beginning of each class and collects them at the end.
In such scenario, the principle laid down in Hackinshaw v. Shaw (1984) and Papantonakis v. Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) was applied. It was held that whenever the floor of the premises wherein plaintiffs are invited by the defendant is wet and slippery or if the premises are unsafe then it is the duty of the defendant to provide safe premises to such plaintiff and inform the plaintiff of such risk.
If the defendant does not provide safe premises to the plaintiff then the duty is violated by such defendant.
It is submitted that it is the duty of Christine to never extend the class beyond 25 students, however, when the incident of Stella took place, the strength was 35. Thus, she violated her duty of care knowing that if the strength of students is extended beyond 25 then injuries may be sustained by the students. Knowing the damager (reasonable forseeability) Christine still continued the class beyond 25. Thus, there is violation of her duty.
Also, knowingly that the floor is slippery still no remedial actions are undertaken by her. Nor she informed the students regarding the slippery floor, thus, there is violation of duty of care by Christine.
Now,
It is also important to evaluate whether Christine has violated his duty of care by placing the steamer and urn near the wall?
In order to analyse the same the principle laid down in Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd(1949) is applied. It was held in the leading case that whenever a dangerous thing is brought in by the defendant on his premises then he must make sure that no loss is sustained by because of such substances to the plaintiff. Of loss is caused because of inadequate duty cater by the defendant then the defendant is held negligent.
In the given situation, Christine has paced steamer and urn near the wall here the students were performing. She was aware that the substances was dangerous and may cause injuries to the students. Knowing the risk involved, no precaution is undertaken by Christine in order to avoid the risk. Hence the duty of care was violated by her.
Now, Christine can be held liable under law of negligence only when loss is caused because of her violation of duty?
Because of the violation of duty by Christine, that is, she commences the class with 35 students and by placing steamer and urn near the wall, Stella when exercising bare foot skid into the leg of the table and the steamer and urn fall upon her damaging her severely.
Thus, because of the violation of duty of care by the Christine, Stella has suffered severe loss and thus Christine must in all circumstances be held liable under the law of negligence.
Thus, a duty of care is imposed on Christine as she must provided safe premises for commencement of yoga classes and extra precaution must be care when placing steamer and urn. However, such duty was violated by her causing damage to Stella. Hence, Christine is liable for negligence and Stella can sue her for her losses.
If Christine is held liable under the law of negligence then can she take any defence under the law of negligence to safeguard her?
When any defendant is held liable under the law of negligence then he must pay the loss that is suffered by the plaintiff because of his actions or omission. However, there are many defences which can be used by the defendant in order to protect his position in any manner what so ever. The answer is yes.
Any defendant who is held liable under the law of negligence has power to seek remedy under the defence of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is one of the defences which can be avail by the defendant (Bitumen and Oil Refineries (Australia) Ltd v Commissioner for Government Transport (1955). The defence of contributory negligence exist when the defendant acted negligent but that was not the only reason for the loss of plaintiff. Rather the plaintiff himself has acted in such manner which has contributed to his own loss (Malika Holdings Pty Ltd v Stretton (2001). In such scenario, it is unjustified to make the defendant liable for whole of the loss suffered by the plaintiff. The law has submitted that when there is contributory negligence by the plaintiff himself then the loss so incurred must be reduced proportionally to the extend of plaintiff contribution and the defendant must be imposed with the liability to the extent of wrong committed by him alone (Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel(1985)). (Barbara 2005)
Now, since Christine is held liable under the law of negligence, she has full right to take the shield of contributory negligence.
This is because when the accident took place, Stella was performing bare foot which was not allowed by Christine considering the slipperiness of the floor. However, Stella still preferred to continue with the exercise barefoot. Thus, she also contributed by her acts which ultimately caused loss to her.
Thus, Christine takes the shield of contributory negligence and reduced his loss proportionally. Once proved courts can reduce the loss by 10% -50%-100%.
In the present case the loss must be 30%/70% wherein Christine must pay 60% of the loss which is caused to Stella because the breach of duty which is violated by her is much higher when compared with the negligence that is caused by Stella herself.
Thus, though Christine was negligent in her acts but she can take the defence of contributory negligence because Stella by exercising bare foot has contribute to her own loss.
Find Solution for commercial law assignment by dropping us a mail at help@myassignmentservices.com.au along with the question’s URL. Get in Contact with our experts at My Assignment Services AU and get the solution as per your specification & University requirement.
Trending now
The Student Corner
Subscribe to get updates, offers and assignment tips right in your inbox.
Popular Solutions
Popular Solutions
Request Callback
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....