It was Sunday afternoon, Martin and his best friend Jonathan was on their way to watch their favorite rugby team, Leeds Rhinos play in the Super League Final. Unfortunately, Martin lost his ticket and was not allowed into the stadium. So, Martin went to the local pub, about 500 meters away to watch the match on TV and Jonathan went into the stadium. Inside the stadium, Jonathan bumped into Martin's sister, Carol who was also on her own; Jonathan invited Carol to take Martin's empty seat. Twenty minutes into the match, a fire was started in the East stand where Jonathan and Carol were sitting. The fire was a result of the negligent catering service who managed the restaurants and bars in the East stand.
[...] Discuss any liability for the damage suffered by Martin Potential liability to Jonathan and Carol Duty of Care According to the case of Caparo and Dickman (1990), a claimant must prove the foresee ability of the damage, the relationship of proximity and that it is fair to impose a duty for compensation. Based on these facts, the service who managed restaurants and bars in the stadium had been negligent managed it which triggered off a fire. It was foreseeable that a fire could have started and that it was fair to impose a duty of care because of the number of people who were in the stadium. [...]
[...] According to the facts, he saw on TV, the deaths of a lot of people. It is likely that a person of ordinary fortitude would have suffered from a psychiatric illness after having seen such a tragedy. The foreseeability of the psychiatric illness is in my mind established. The proximity of relationship The claimant has to prove a close tie of love and affection. This proximity of relationship is presumed for spouses, parents, and children. For brothers, sisters, friends, relatives, the proximity of relationship must be proved with evidence. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee