The tort of negligence has wide application and includes liability for losses or injury suffered at work, on the roads, in a dangerous premises, or as a result of medical accidents, professional malpractice or defective products. Us as the defendants would only be liable if the court is satisfied that we failed to take reasonable care. To avoid being in this predicament the company must ensure that everything to do with extreme sports is checked regularly, so that safety for the clients is maximised reducing the risks of unnecessary accidents, for example safety harnesses checked for faults, quad bikes services regularly (same for jet skis and other motor vehicles used) and safety equipment such as gloves and helmets are worn. Another way of reducing the risk of being sued would be for the clients to sign a document stating that we have taken due care in insuring their safety and that accidents that may happen we are not responsible for unless to do with equipment.
- EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEES.
Every business is exposed to potential claims in negligence from a number of diverse sources; this is especially true for us as we have a high risk organisation due to the circumstances and orientation of the service we provide. You as employers are especially vulnerable because, under the rules of vicarious liability you are liable as an employer for wrongful acts committed by your employees in the course of their work. The employments rights act of 1996 states that the employee must abide by these rules obedience, competence, care, and good faith, which could be used in dealing with matters of employment regarding dismissal, damages or deduction of pay for inflicting any losses on the employer.
Vicarious liability is what effects the employer, there are some known cases where the law is prepared to impose vicarious liability on an individual who is not at fault for the commissions of the wrongful act of another. So in simple terms if one of your employees is responsible for running one of the activities and does not check that everything is safe and secure then an accident occurs then you the employer is responsible for the actions taken by the employee.
- LIABILITY OF OCCUPIERS TO VISITORS AND TRESPASSERS.
For a start I will explain what is meant by the term ‘occupier’. There can be one or more persons, who can occupy the premises; this is the person who owns the premises not necessarily the person who is living there.
Occupiers of business premises whether freeholders or business tenants have duties placed upon them to ensure the safety of all lawful entrants by virtue of the occupiers liability act 1957 and in some cases an obligation to take reasonable care extends to uninvited visitors under the occupiers liability act 1984.
The business land lord is regarded as the occupier in relation to parts of the premises which remain under their control for example, entrance halls, lifts, forecourts, or in other common parts. Also if the land lord is under an obligation to repair, they may, under defective premises act 1972 be made liable for injuries occurred as a result of a failure to fulfil the repairs that are needed. Premises that are let, both the landlord and the tenant are regarded as the occupier of the premises but this is for different purposes under this act.
At the activity centre your care of duty relies on that of the safety of the customer that is using the grounds at the times of use, but also you are responsible for the reasonable care of providing safety for child trespassers, this is under the act, which was made in 1972.
Overall the business, which you run, has a liability of occupiers to all clients and trespassers. If you do not make a reasonable and responsible attempt to make sure the premises is safe and suitable for use, then the action that could be facing you may lead to compensation pay outs and other legal actions. For example a past case against British railways board v. Herrington 1972 on child trespassing. In this case British railways had negligently failed to maintain fencing, which ran between their railway track and a park frequently used by children. A six year old climbed through the fence, wandered onto the track, and then suffered severe injury on the electrical rail. The House of Lords held the board liable in negligence to the child trespasser. The court stated that, “….if the presence of the trespasser is known or ought reasonably to be anticipated by the occupier then the occupier has a duty to treat the trespasser with ordinary humanity.”
- CONCLUSIONS
When looking at the new business venture and the laws spoke about earlier I feel that you should read more about other laws to maintain the safety of your business. I hope that the information given in this report helps you to understand what is needed to be sufficiently done to avoid any unforeseeable accidents and possible claims resulting in bad publicity and other aspects that may harm your trading.
Nathan Cozzetto
