Chantelle forests v Department of Arts. Essay Example

simultaneously, Mrs. Woods did not use the provided beam as her hands were occupied with materials. This situation should be analyzed as there is a high possibility of an accident occurring.

2) Definition of Negligence

"Negligence can be characterized as the failure to act reasonably in any situation to prevent harm or injury that is reasonably foreseeable." In simple terms, it refers to harm caused by carelessness rather than intentional action. (Donoghue v Stevenson)

The principle of negligence was established in this case. A man purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a store. He then gave the beer to his friend who consumed it and discovered a bullet at the bottom of the bottle. As a result of this shocking discovery, the friend experienced intense nausea and stomach illness.

She filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer. The Judge examined the regulations of negligence that the manufacturer had a duty of care towards the end user of their product. If they failed to fulfill this duty in a reasonable manner and someone experienced loss or harm as a result of their negligence, they would be held responsible for that person's loss under negligence. (Davenport.)

2008) For any instance to succeed in a negligence case, they must establish the following element:

Element of Negligence

Duty of Care: It is legally required that individuals adhere to a standard of reasonable care when engaging in actions that could potentially cause harm to others. All people have a responsibility to prevent foreseeable harm or injury to those who may be directly affected by their actions. Manufacturers of products must exercise duty of care towards end users, and employers must provide a safe working environment as

part of their duty of care towards employees.

The case of Ryan V Ireland 1989 examines the extent of liability that employers bear for their employees. The case involves a soldier, who was employed in a precarious environment under the guidance of a superior officer. This particular location had witnessed multiple deaths caused by gunfire, leading the soldiers responsible for guarding duty to prioritize self-preservation over fulfilling their obligations. Nonetheless, after a few days, the gunfire ceased and the area was deemed secure.

The complainant was ordered by their superior officer to return to their normal place, but was shot immediately after starting again, which resulted in their disability.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court determined that the province, as the complainant's employer, failed to take proper care of their employee. The officer has a duty of care towards the complainant, even though soldiers inherently face the risk of death and injury. It is reasonable to foresee that there is a possibility of being shot in the same location where the complainant was injured, considering the number of lives lost there before.

The Supreme Court ruled that the state was responsible for the plaintiff's disability because the superior officer who sent an employee to a dangerous location did not act reasonably. According to Brian Doolan's 8th edition (2011), the Department of Arts, Culture, and the Gaeltacht has a duty of care towards Mrs. Woods to provide a safe work environment. This duty applies even to soldiers whose work involves unavoidable risks of death and injury.

The employer is responsible for the complainant's disability resulting from their occupation. Thus, accountability should extend to the Arts, Culture,

and Gaeltacht section. It is surprising that Mrs. Woods could suffer a decline in her quality of life due to her job. The slipperiness of the vinyl surface on the steps is evident. A conscientious employer should anticipate the risk of individuals slipping on the landing, particularly when walking downhill and especially among females. Employers must ensure the presence of cleaners during working hours to maintain a clean and safe environment.

Violation of the duty of care:

Failure to properly move or protect an individual under one's responsibility can lead to adverse outcomes. The Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht was held accountable for neglecting their duty of care in the lawsuit concerning Mrs. Woods. Employers have a responsibility to establish a safe work setting for their staff members. It is anticipated that cleaning and security staff will be present during working hours to maintain cleanliness.

Placing a caution mark on the wet floor is one way to indicate a specific area. Even if Mrs Woods was talking on the phone while walking, seeing the caution mark would have reminded her to be cautious and careful.

The failure to indicate an unsafe working environment is considered a breach of the duty of care, which establishes a connection between the defendant's negligence and the harm or damages suffered by the claimant or plaintiff. Essentially, it means that if someone fails in their duty of care towards another person, that person is entitled to compensation for any harm they endure, regardless of any existing conditions. This principle is often referred to as the Egg-shell skull rule, which mandates that defendants must accept their victims as they are found.

Regardless of

the level of harm inflicted, the individual responsible for causing pain to another person is held responsible for the ensuing suffering.

In a legal case in the United States called Vosburg v Putney, an 11-year-old boy attacked a 14-year-old boy by kicking him.

A 14-year-old boy underwent leg amputation due to a microbial infection in his shin, aggravated by wearing poorly fitting boots. The court found an 11-year-old boy responsible for the incorrect use of the boots. Mrs. Wood, despite having a pre-existing spinal condition, continued her regular work without any adverse effects or complaints.

Mrs. Wood suffered an accident during her lunch break that aggravated her minor injury and rendered her unable to resume her usual job. Given that computer work usually entails prolonged sitting, it is conceivable that any occupation involving extended periods of sitting may be beyond her capability due to the specific nature of her workplace injury - a fall from 10 to 12 steps resulting in head trauma. This situation could potentially give rise to future injuries. As a result, Mrs. Wood's employer should bear responsibility for her injury in accordance with the eggshell skull rule, which maintains that the victim must be accepted as they are found.

General hurt:

The general hurt is less quantifiable and more subjective. It includes feelings of hurting, loss of agreeableness, and diminished enjoyment of life and future wellness job, among others. I would categorize Mrs. Woods' hurt as a general hurt under general amendss.

Since she is suffering from pain, she is unable to work and there is also a possibility that she will have a future spinal cord problem as a consequence of

the accident she had at her workplace. Although the accident Mrs. Woods had at her workplace was not intentional or deliberate.

However, she contributed to it.

Conducive carelessness:

This is the state of affairs whereby the Plaintiff contributed or failed to move sensible to procure her own safety. From my own personal probe. Mrs.

Woods played a significant role in the accident through multiple actions. For example, she was engrossed in a phone conversation with her friend while climbing the stairs. Clearly, her attention was solely focused on the phone rather than concentrating on ascending the stairs. In addition to this, despite the floor being wet, there are other factors that prove the accident occurred due to Mrs. Woods' negligence. For instance, she failed to wear her glasses and was walking in high heels measuring 6 inches. It is perplexing how she expected to identify the wet spot without her glasses when she already suffers from poor eyesight.

Once again, the 6 inches high heel that she was wearing was too high to be worn in a work environment. In the case of Badger v. The Curate of Defense Mechanism EWCH 2005, a widow filed a lawsuit against the Curate of Defense Mechanism on behalf of her deceased husband, who was a smoker.

He worked as a boiler shaper in the section and was exposed to asbestos dust and fiber, which caused him to develop lung cancer and ultimately led to his untimely death. Medical evidence confirmed that his persistent smoking habit also contributed to the development of lung cancer that resulted in his premature death.

Justice Stanley Brown

Refers to section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1954, which states

that an individual who suffers damages.

Unless the suspect is at fault, any individual who is partially responsible for their own mistake or the mistake of another person will have their recoverable damages reduced as required by law. As a result of his negligence, Mrs. Badger's claim was reduced by 25 percent. Similarly, Mrs. Woods' claim will be decreased because she failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety.

The Restriction Period

During the restriction period, individuals or organizations have the chance to take legal action for a wrongdoing. During this timeframe, anyone who has been harmed because of someone's actions can file a claim. However, once this time limit is over, the case becomes statute barred and the right to file a claim is no longer valid. In the case of Mrs Woods v the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

Within the restriction period, the instance occurred in February and legal action was taken against the employer in August, within a twelvemonth. The claim was made under personal hurt and falls within the two-year restriction period for such cases. Therefore, the claim is not statute barred. Another case involves Mr. Cuddy, a buyer who took legal action against Wood Bell Camp for a property purchase that was falsely calculated by one of their employees; this action was under negligent mis-statement.

Negligent mis-statement is the act of carelessly stating a fact. It can also be defined as an unreliable individual providing inaccurate information to another person who relies on it and takes action based on that information. These statements always harm the person making the claim, resulting in disadvantages like loss of income.

To avoid being held liable

for negligent misstatement, the person who makes a statement must have a specific relationship with the recipient. This relationship is built on trust and reliance on the information provided. The statement-maker should be aware that the recipient acts upon and believes the given information. Hence, it is the responsibility of the maker to guarantee accuracy in order to prevent any possible legal consequences.

The Plaintiff is requesting recompense for the loss and damages they suffered due to the defendant's negligence and negligent misstatement. They purchased a property measuring 23.057 square feet through a reputable auction house hired by the property owner.

The entire measuring of the floor was done by the buyer himself, without engaging a private surveyor for verification of the supplied measurements. The property was purchased for ?2. 34200 Irish lbs. However, the buyer later discovered that the floor area was actually 1.

A legal action was taken against the suspect for providing 817 square pess less than what was originally given. Judge Quirke, when dealing with this issue, stated that the suspect failed to meet the necessary criterion of attention that a buyer expects from a reputable auctioneer. This failure is considered a breach in the duty of care.

The case of Walsh V Jones Lasalle ltd is similar to the case of Cuddy v Wood Bell Camp. In Cuddy v Wood Bell Camp, the plaintiff Mr Cuddy did not fully rely on the information provided by Wood Bell Camp. Instead, he contacted a property surveyor to examine the property before making a decision to purchase it. Unfortunately, he suffered a loss on the property because the floor measurement was 30% less than what

was given to him by the auctioneers. Wood Bell Camp was found liable for negligent misstatement for providing an inaccurate calculation. In Walsh V Jones Lasalle, the high court determined that most auctioneers had some sort of disclaimer in their brochure. Judge Quirke explained that the disclaimer was an attempt by the agents to protect themselves from relatively minor mistakes.

He stated that he expected their measurements to be accurate, which the buyer could rely on. However, Wood Bell Camp failed in this aspect and the buyer who trusted them suffered a loss in their purchase.

Judge Quirke

If the defendant wanted to include incorrect measurements in its sales brochure and avoid liability to the targeted individuals who received the booklet and its content.

The suspect had the responsibility to inform the complainant and other potential buyers that the published measurements were likely to be unreliable and should not be trusted under any circumstances. However, the suspect neglected to fulfill this duty (Walsh v Jones Lasalle Ltd). Additionally, Bell Camps, similar to forests, also failed to advise the buyer not to rely on their measurements. According to Judge Quirke in the Walsh v Jones Lasalle Ltd case, both parties should be held responsible for the buyer's loss.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability is a legal rule that transfers liability of an injury to a person who did not cause the injury, but who has a specific relationship to an individual who acted negligently. The owner of a vehicle is responsible for the wrongdoing committed by their driver. An employer is held responsible for their employees' negligent acts while they are working on assigned tasks during working hours. This type of wrongdoing

is referred to as a civil wrong committed during the course of employment.

Wood Bell Camp, as the employer of Brody Shine who was assigned to sell Mr Cuddy's belongings, should be held accountable for the civil wrong committed under vicarious liability laws.

Defense Mechanism: Consent and Contributory Carelessness

Consent is the act of giving approval or disapproval regarding a specific matter after careful consideration. It is crucial because it determines legitimacy. Wood Bell Camp knew that Mr. Cuddy had hired a property surveyor to assess the property, but they were unaware that the surveyor relied solely on their own measurements instead of conducting their own independent measurements.

Mr Cuddy also contributed to his own loss by failing to ensure that the property surveyor he had assigned accurately measured the property and compared it to the measurement provided by Wood Bell Camp before purchasing the property. In the case of Walsh V Jones lasalle ltd, the court ruled that it was the complainant's duty of care to ensure the accuracy of the property measurement stated in the sales booklet before making the purchase. Although David Walsh did not consult a property surveyor before buying the property, Mr Cuddy did, but he failed to ensure the accuracy of the measurements, thus contributing to his own loss. If he had personally conducted measurements and brought any discrepancies to Wood Bell Camp's attention, he could have potentially avoided this outcome.

I believe the monetary value would have been reduced for him to accommodate the correct measurement. The company would have assigned another auctioneer to recover the floor measurement and compare it to what Mr. Cuddy's property surveyor had provided.

Bibliography

1. Brian. Doolan (2011) Principle of

Irish Law. Dublin. Gill and Macmillian Davenport. Ruth (2008) make that class basicss of Irish jurisprudence. Dublin. Gill and Macmillian Ursula. Connolly (2009) Round Hall nutshells Tort. Dublin.

Thomson Reuters

• [->0] – hypertext transfer protocol: //www.wikipedia.com