SCEE RIO 1 Ruth went to the Thrills and Spills swimming pool with her 4 year old
ID: 349060 • Letter: S
Question
SCEE RIO 1 Ruth went to the Thrills and Spills swimming pool with her 4 year old son Mark The non-slip covering on the walkway surrounding the pool was in disrepair. There was a hole in the covering and Mark caught his footin itand fell hitting his head and breaking the kickboard he was carrying. Ruth was near the office, which had a notice o utside stating NO ENTRY Staff Only. Ruth aw a fist aid box inside the office. Itwas fixed to the wall with a fauity clip. Ruth ran inside to collect the boxand while reeasing the clip she cuther hand and broke her bracelet Thrills and Spills leas ed the swimming pool premises from the owneradlandord. Premium Pools Ltd. The manager of Thrills and Spills said the hole in the walkway covering had appeared only 2 days ago. He said the landord Premium Pools Ltd were responsibe for the firstaid box and had been told 3 months ago that the faulty clip need to be fixed AdriseRuth and Mark as toarny passible daims they may haveunder theOcapiers Liatility Acts 1957 and 1984 and the Defective Premises Act 1972 Can (1) Mark, and 2) Ruth bring a claim against Thrils and Spills and/or Premium Pools Lto? . What must be proved under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957? . What must be proved under the Occupiers Liability Act 1 9847 Whatmust beproved under the Defective Premises Act 19727 Apply these Acts to what has happened to Mark and Ruth. What remedy can each of them claim? *Explanation / Answer
Mark and Ruth can bring a claim against "Thrills & Spills" as they are the occupiers of the property owned by "Premium Pools Ltd" and as such, Thrills & Spills owes safety of its customers or clients under the Occupiers Liability Act. But Mark and Ruth will be covered under different versions of the Act. Mark can bring a claim against the occupiers "Thrills & Spills" under Occupiers Liability Act 1957 as he is a visitor. However, Ruth had entered a restricted area, though in good faith, and she would need to file for claim under Occupiers Liability Act 1984 as she is a trespasser.
Mark can be covered for claim under Occupiers Liability Act 1957 if it can be proved that the occupier had not made sure of reasonable safety for a child(Mark), who was accompanied by his guardian Ruth, by not fixing the hole in the defective walkway, since the tenant was aware of the same for 2 days prior. Mark can also be covered by Defective Premises Act 1972, if it can be proved that the landlord ought to have known of the defect since it had happened 2 days prior as stated by the occupier.
Ruth can be covered under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 as she was an inadvertent trespasser, and it can be proved that the occupier was aware of and had sufficient reason to warrant existence of defect(faulty clip). The claim can be applied since the occupier was aware of it for three months prior. Also, the landlord was also liable under Section 4(1) of Defective Premises Act 1972, since he had already been informed of the faulty clip by the occupier three months prior according to the occupier. If this point can be proved, Ruth can still claim for damages under the act.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.