• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Exclusion Clauses Scenario Question -an exclusion clause said ice skaters skate at their own risk.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

4. Professional Ice Skaters train REGULARLY . Negligence personal injury. Exclusion clause said not responsible for loss or injury sustained by users of the rink. On the ticket office and also on the back of the ticket. Was owners liable for skater?s lost income? It is obvious that the negligence of the cleaners have led to the injuries suffered by Tatiana and Igor. The main issue is whether the owners can limit or restrict their liabilities by relying on the exclusion clause displayed. It is clear that the cleaners have been negligent by leaving the machinery on ice, hence the owners ought to be vicariously liable for their acts. An exclusion clause Is a clause that aims to limit their liability. In this case, the exclusion clause aims to limit negligent performance, when a duty of care is owed by the owners under Occupier?s Liability Act 1957. ...read more.

Middle

There must also be a need for a contractual document. The exclusion clause must be contained in something which can be regarded as a contractual document. In this case, the owner would rely on the ticket which includes the exclusion clauses. In Chapelton v Barry, the plaintiff wished to hire a deck chair. He received a receipt which excluded liability for damage and personal injury. The receipt had come too late, and it was not a document which the customer would expect to find contractual terms, hence it was not incorporated. In this case , the exclusion clause on the ticket had come too late. It came after the skaters had pay the fee and was not a document which one would expect to find such contractual terms. It is most likely the case that the exclusion clause is not incorporated on the ticket. ...read more.

Conclusion

As these arise due to the negligence of the cleaner, the exclusion clause must be sufficiently clear to exempt such liability. In White v John Warrick v Sons, there was a clause that the owner relied on to exempt liability for personal injury caused by negligence. It was ambiguous hence the contra proferentum rule applied. In this case, only clauses which expressly referred to negligence will allow the party to avoid liability for negligence if the clause could not be interpreted as referring to other kinds of liability. Hence it could be said that the exclusion clause in the ice rink had not been clear enough and the owner cannot rely on it to exempt liability for personal injury. The clause will thn be interpreted in favour of Tatiana and Igor. Assuming that the exclusion clause has been incorporated due to previous course of dealings, the UCTA would negate its effect. The owners would ultimately be liable to compensate the skaters. The owners should pay the 50000 of loss of income to the skaters. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    enlarged the scope of the mental element required for murder and had misdirected the jury. The trial judge told the jury that a 'substantial risk' as to the consequences was only required to infer intention, but the House of Lords declared that the consequences have to be (a)

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    A defendant can be liable in both contract and tort. For example, if a householder is injured by building work done on their home, it may be possible to sue in tort for negligence and for breach of a contractual term to take reasonable care.

  1. In the scenario for this report the parties have committed certain crimes - give ...

    After applying these the Ghosh test would be used. This was put forward by lord lane CJ, in Ghosh [82]8. The two parts of the Ghosh test that would be applied are, whether it was dishonest by the standards of a reasonable and honest person, then if the answer is

  2. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to ...

    Charles is employed on the site and amongst his job functions he is required to carry out some welding work. Charles has suffered an eye injury whilst using protective goggles which were defective. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to draft a

  1. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    This type of mens rea is only used for certain cases of manslaughter. Crimes of strict liability are where the prosecution do not have to prove mens rea and are mainly used for regulatory offences such as traffic offences where the penalty is often a fine.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    This legal responsibility is called occupiers? liability. Property owners must take particular care to protect children who may be enticed onto their property by an item such as a swimming pool. Items that might entice a child to enter someone?s property are known as allurements. If found liable, wrongdoers must compensate victims in full for losses.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work