ENGLISH LAW ASSIGNMENT

English Law Assignment

English Law Assignment

Q1-

Ans. Referring to the scenario the injury of May due to the loose rope fixing was the responsibility of the Hogwits school and secondly the liability of Neville the local contractor who should have assured the tightness of the rope before finally completing the rope fixing contract with the Hogwits school. We can liken the case with Smoldon v Whitworth & Nolan 1997 PIQR P133, CA The plaintiff, who was aged 17 at the time, suffered very serious personal injuries when playing hooker in a colts rugby match, when a serum collapsed, and his neck was broken. He asserted damages against the first defendant, a member of the opposing group, and against the second defendant, the referee. The assertion against the first defendant was brushed aside, and there was no apply against that decision.

The plaintiff contended that the second defendant was obliged him a duty of care to enforce the Laws of the Game, to request them fairly, to effect command of the match so as to double-check that the players were not exposed to pointless risk of injury and to have specific regard to the fact that some of the players (including the plaintiff) were under the age of eighteen at the date of the match. The second defendant acknowledged that he owed the plaintiff a obligation of care, but contended that the first defendant's obligation to the plaintiff was only to refrain from initating him injury on purpose or with reckless disregard for his security, that this benchmark of care itself qualified or acquainted his own standard of care, and that he could only be liable where he had shown deliberate or reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety.

The referee adopted the plaintiff's delineation of the second defendant's duty. He discovered that the second defendant had not enforced safety requirements set out in the regulations of the Game which comprised exceptional provisions pertaining to players elderly under nineteen, and needing front rows to enlist in a crouch-touch-pause-enlist sequence. He also discovered that there had been approximately three or four times the number of disintegrated scrums that would not be abnormal in such a game, at the deduction of the last of which, close to the end of the agree, the plaintiff sustained his injuries.

He found that as a consequence of the second defendant's failure to instruct the front rows sufficiently and require the crouch-touch-pause-engage sequence the relevant scrum collapse and the consequential injuries to the plaintiff occurred, in breach of the second defendant's duty of care to him. The second defendant appealed. Held, brushing aside the apply, that the referee had adopted the correct formulation of the second defendant's duty. It was not essential to display a high grade of probability that if the scrum disintegrated serious wound of the kind which appeared was a highly likely consequence; grave spinal wound was a foreseeable consequence of a disintegrate of the scrum and of failure to avert collapse of the ...