Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Kangaroo case of Law Group one

No description
by

Wei SHI

on 1 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Kangaroo case of Law Group one

Group ONE
BTX 9030 Kangaroo Case Background of the case A golf course emerged kangaroos to attack people

Kangaroos are usually not aggressive even rare in breeding seasons

A boy injured by a kangaroo when playing golf without his parents

He has been hospitalized and story went public and media
Legal risks to the business-Tort Of Negligence 1st consideration: owe a duty of care?

Neighbor test--(Australian Safeway Stores P/L v Zaluzna)--supermarket owed duty of care to its lawful customers

The boy was attacked by the Kangaroo during playing golf in the golf course

Reasonable foreseeability—little foreseeable to a major accident

Likely owed duty of care to the injured boy
Tort Of Negligence 2nd consideration: exercised proper standard of care?

Act of negligence could not established if the foreseeable risk has very low possibility to be occurred

Exercised all reasonable step to minimize the risk?
Tort Of Negligence
3th consideration: damages
Causation:
•“but for” test not apply
•may not be necessary direct causation
•March v Stramare Pty Ltd

Not too remote
•little foreseeability
•Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd

Golf course breached the standard duty of care and the damage was reasonable foresee Tort Of Negligence Defences

Golf course can defend by the contributory negligence of the parents

Disclaimer is not effective
Risk Assessment of Tort Of Negligence Highly likelihood that Golf course would be liable to the boy for negligence

Highly likelihood that the plaintiff may claim for compensation

Golf course could defense as parents have contributory negligence
Legal Risks Assessment of Contract Statements made after contract formed are not terms
-Warning sign location

Implied Terms in Service Contracts
- The service is not fit the purpose for which it was acquired.
ACL part 3-2 Subdivision B 60
If a person supplies in trade or commerce that serve to consumers, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.

High chance of breach Treatment Solve the issue outside the court
-Negotiate with parents
-Apologize through the local media

Lose a lawsuit and reputation, might loss future business
Place the fence around the golf course

Place more caution signs

Allocate professional staff to patrol the golf course

Set up CCTV system if budget allow.

Promote school activities to ease negatives
Recommendation
Full transcript