More handpicked essays just for you.
The nature of sponsorship in the sports industry
The nature of sponsorship in the sports industry
The nature of sponsorship in the sports industry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Duty of Care in Sport The Tort of Negligence The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm that has occurred as a result of carelessness. Intentional harm is not covered by this particular area of law. For negligence to be proven, three elements must be met: it must be proven that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; that this duty of care was breached; and that damage or injury resulted because of this breach. Duty of care is established if it can be proven that the damage or injury suffered was reasonably foreseeable, and that there was a proximate relationship between the two parties where it is not unreasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant to not cause harm to the plaintiff. The main stipulation …show more content…
here is to prove that reasonable care was not taken to prevent damage or injury. The decision of whether the steps taken to prevent issue is reasonable and sufficient is up to the courts. Case Study: AUSTRALIAN RACING DRIVERS CLUB LTD v METCALF Background Metcalf paid for admission into the premises of the Australian Racing Drivers Club (ARDC) in order to watch the race meeting that was being held.
While spectating, a car left the track and collided with Metcalf on land adjacent to the track, causing injury. Metcalf, through his son Metcalf Junior, sued to recover damages for injuries caused. It was argued by Metcalf that as the ARDC was the occupier of the land, ARDC was responsible for the care, control, and management of the track facilities. As a paying spectator, Metcalf was owed a duty of care by the ARDC to be able to safely watch the race meet. Decision The ARDC argued that an accident in these conditions was not foreseeable. This was dismissed by the court, which held that accidents at a car racing event it is common for these things to occur, and as such held a duty of care to Metcalf. The court ruled in favour of …show more content…
Metcalf. Duty of Care in Sport The case above demonstrates how negligence and duty of care is applied in regards to spectators, to whom a duty of care is surely owed by the venue as a result of the proximate relationship.
However, negligence and duty of care is applied slightly different to spectator of an event than to the participants of the event. If a participant of a sport was injured and able to sue for negligence, no club would be willing to take the risk of paying damages to every player, and as a result there would be no clubs. That is why proving negligence towards a player is determined by whether the injury occurred within the normal and accepted constraints of not only the rules, but common rule breaches also. This is because the player is voluntarily assuming the risks of playing the sport. This is the defence that many defendants use against plaintiffs attempting to pursue legal action. Volenti non fit injuria is the name of this defence, which literally translates to “no harm can be done to one who consents”. This means that while injury may be done in the normal course of a sport, the law does not recognise it as harm worthy of legal remedy. The issue in this, however, is knowing what exactly is covered by volenti non fit injuria. According to case law precedent, there are injuries that are an inevitable part of some rough sports, and this is covered by the volenti defence. However, this is not the same as injuries that have occurred as a result of careless or inadequate supervision or
instruction, or injuries resulting from the negligence of another individual. Once a duty of care has been established, the decision of whether the duty of care has been breached is dependent on the evaluation of the ‘standard of care’. This standard is always based on ‘what a reasonable man would do by the way of response to the risk’. The Civil Liability Acts of the Australian states all have the same conditions for considering the standard of care. In analysing the standard of care in a case, the courts must consider: the probability of harm had care not be taken; the likely seriousness of the harm; the cost, difficulty, and inconvenience of remedying risks; and any such social utility. ‘Social utility’ refers to whether certain risks may be worth taking because of the value of the activity in question. Conclusion Duty of care is a complex and dynamic principle that may change depending on those involved and the circumstances involved. It is important to not only look at to whom a duty of care is owed, but also to what degree standard of care is owed, and what the circumstances are at the time.
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, et.al 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential
Although the plaintiff’s car was stolen, the court held that the wording of the exclusion clause was satisfactory in covering the negligence that occurred and clearly denied the parking station of any liability towards the plaintiff. If it is found that ‘loss’ equates to damages, it can be assumed that the valet parking service holds no liability for the damage to Kati’s
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to compensate victims for any negligence.
In the civil suit against Firefighter Johnson and the Portage Fire District, the prosecution was charged with providing evidence that negligence by both parties had contributed to the death of Ian Huffman and the attempted homicide of Olivia Duty. Prosecutors allege “Mr. Johnson was driving his personal vehicle as fast as 98 mph on State Rt. 19 on his way to the fire station in Oak Harbor just seconds before he crashed into the rear of Ms. Duty's car at Portage River South Road” (Feehan, 2012, para. 6). The posted speed limit on Portage River South Road was 55 mph at the time of the accident (Curt, 2012). The defense alleges that Firefighter Johnson was using his lights and sirens and that Ian Huffman was not wearing a seatbelt at the...
Facts: The P (Kendra Knight) was participating in a coed touch football game, while playing the D (Michael Jewett) broke the plaintiff's finger by knocking her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. Where Knight had to get a number of four surgeries and she lost her finger. According to the D claim he was only trying intercept a pass and when he came down he stepped on her hand. He did not mean to hurt or injured Knight. The P says otherwise she says Jewett came behind and knocked her down. She put her arms out to break the fall and Jewett ran over her, stepping on her hand. The P is suing the D for negligence and assault and battery. Knight appealed the ruling of the decision.
v. Agyemang, supra, R. v. Chan, [2011] O .J. No. 3329, and R. v. Irvine, [2002] O. J. No. 5375; aff’d [2004] O.J. No. 914. (The court finds in light of the greater part of the incidental confirmation in this trial, both for the deductions tried to be depended upon by the Crown, and in light of the majority of the proof in this trial including those put together by the safeguard, that Mr. Singh had been the driver of the Acura auto in the time allotment in the blink of an eye before 9:55 pm. at the point when the Toronto police dispatched the principal cop to the scene. Unquestionably, the court finds past a sensible uncertainty that this Acura auto had been driven around there after 8:35 pm. and preceding 9:55 pm. At the point when this auto was watched stranded on the streetcar tracks in the
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Furthermore, following the collision, one of the passenger succumbed to his injuries. The respondent allowed his passengers not wear safety seatbelt and allowed 8 occupants in his vehicle which is designed to only 7 occupants. In addition, more weight is given to the department’s evidence and Officer Severing’s testimony. Officer Severing testified that based on his training and experience the Respondent made an unsafe turning movement to the left and lost his control. There is no damage made or any paint transfer from semi truck to the respondent’s vehicle.
In today’s society, especially sporting activities involving youth and young adults, it is imperative to ensure the safety of those involved. When an individual is injured either physically, emotionally or both, there is the concern of legal action towards coaches and the association conducting the sporting activity (Wolohan, 2013). The litigious culture that Americans live under has produced a heightened awareness to avoid negligence in athletic activities through proper training and education (Wolohan, 2013). Negligence is defined as an unintended accident that has caused injury to a person or material goods without a premeditated plan of action to cause pain and suffering (Yiamouyiannis, 2008). For that reason, the
There are several examples where “the veil is lifted” by case law. In the case of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] CH 935 1, a company cannot be used in order to avoid legal obligations or to commit fraud. A person is not allowed to use his or her own company to abstain from contractual obligation. Horne was appointed by Gilford Motor Co Ltd for six years employment and he had signed an agreement with the terms of he is not allowed to solicit or entice away any customers of the Gilford, during his employment or after the termination of the employment. Horne resigned three years later; he had formed a new company which competes with his former employer. He also sent out the circulars to the customers of his former employer. However, Gilford
(2015) notes that the duty of care makes it obligatory for the management to take care of the participant's needs. Different states in America have provisions that must be followed by sports participants and that which forms the basis for litigation. A court in LA, for instance, may have different laws on negligence as compared to Texas, California and even New York. It is hence imperative to understand the various legislatures on the duty of care and the responsibilities assigned to each sports participants. A breach of the law, therefore, makes one liable for any compensation for injuries suffered by the participant (Cerny v. Cedar Bluffs JR./SR.