Professional Skills

Professional Skills

Memo

To: Andrew Payne

From: Trainee Solicitor

Date: 03/07/2012

Subject: Negligence Claim

Facts about Relevant Case of Law

The defendants rented a bouncy castle for celebrating the tenth birthday party of their triplets. The bouncy castle was inclined in a field adjacent to the garden of the defendants, which was not closed for the public and mainly used for playing football. The father of the Claimant led the football team for boys who practiced in the field1. Claimant who was just eleven years old was the member of the team. After he finished playing football, Claimant and his friend went towards the Bouncy castle, and concluded the judge, was cleared to play by the defendant who was Mrs. Perry, who has been monitoring the activity over time. The party had not started yet, but the other children were playing in the castle, involving one from the triplets and one of their friends named Sam, Sam was both taller and older than the others. Sam and Claimant started doing flips. At a point when like Claimant was coming back on his feet after doing the flip, Sam was half flipped, and the heel by mistake hit the forehead of the Claimant . The claimant underwent a depressed fracture of skull and subdural hematoma. The consequences of the harm were permanent and severe; the Claimant will have to take care of the rest of his life. In the immediate action, the back of the defendant was turned because she was attending to second child.

First instance decision of the Court

In the first case, Justice David Steel seized that the Defendants were responsible to Claimant for his injuries. After finding that the permit had been issued for the kids to play in the Castle area, it was recognized that the Defendants were to be paid duty of care to the Claimant. Steel J. claimed that the trial of the applicant on the scope of this task, which was established as follows: (i) maintain continuous vigilance, (ii) to stop children to do somersaults or flips, and (iii ) to make sure that only children of the same weight and size were playing in the castle at that moment. In make the scope the duty scope, the judge invoked rental document, which had been seen by the defendants, and two other documents were also available on the website of the rental company, which they did not have. On the basis of facts, the judge concluded that Defendants had violated all duty elements and was responsible for the injuries of the Claimant.

Letter

To: Mrs. Stephenson

From: Trainee Solicitor

Date: 03/07/2012

Respected Madam,

The facts about your case are very much related to the facts of the Perry v Harris [2008]. So i am writing this letter to answer the questions that you were concerned about

The defendants demanded. The Lord Phillips granted the ruling of the court, conceding the appeal failed to give the complaint. It was established that the duty of the defendants had been too severe and that it was unrealistic and impossible to exclude ...