Torts Law: Hypothetical Question

To establish liability in negligence, it must be proven on the balance of probabilities that AMG Pty Ltd (‘AMG’) owed either (1) Jessica (‘J) or (2) Florence (‘F’) a duty of care and that this duty was breached .

(1) J suffered a concussion and soft tissue injuries to her back and neck following the collapse of a lighting grid. Duty of care is a particular and defined legal obligation arising between a defendant and plaintiff. Duty of care requires a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm and a duty relationship . The relationship of AMG and J falls under the established category of Occupier and Entrant. AMG is bound by the duties outlined in the Occupiers Liability Act 1985 (WA) (‘OLA’). Scope of this duty (OLA s5 (1)-(3) for AMG as an Occupier is limited to J’s attendance at the concert . Reasonable foreseeability does not require foresight of the exact series of events. Risk is judged prospectively . It is sufficient that a reasonable person in AMG’s position could foresee their acts or omissions may have a ‘not far-fetched or fanciful’ risk of harm to J or others at the venue. AMG should have knowledge of the type of event, and prepared reasonable means of control . It did not need to foresee the precise events of people jumping on the rigging, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that with added pressure was on the lighting rig, that it may collapse. Objectively, this could cause injury. AMG should be aware of the propensity for young persons to take risks, and have security to monitor the behaviour of the entrants. AMG could have avoided injury to J if they had exercised reasonable care and control in monitoring and preventing two girls from jumping on the lighting grid. They ought to have done so given their relationship to provide J as reasonable care in preventing danger within the venue (OLA s(1)-(3). This fulfils the neighbourhood requirement. There is issue as the falling of the lighting grid was a result of a third party. Possibly the behaviour of the two girls interrupted the duty of care owed by AMG . Adeels Palace found that the venue owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care to prevent disorderly conduct. The girls’ reckless behaviour would likely fall under this distinction; AMG would still owe a duty of care to J.

Breach requires identification of a reasonable foreseeability of risk, that the risk is not insignificant, and a failure to meet the reasonable standard of care. The factors for consideration are outlined in the OLA and the CLA . Standard of care is that of ‘such care as in all circumstances is reasonable’ (CLA s5B (1)(c)). Whether AMG breached their duty to J is a question of fact evaluated on the perception and judgement of a reasonable occupier . This is to provide a safe premise and act to prevent injury or damage by danger (OLA s5(4)). Calculus of negligence must be examined to determine whether a reasonable occupier would have implemented precautions