Law of Obligations(Tort) LLB Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Law of Obligations(Tort) LLB - Essay ExampleFrances (and his parents), depending upon the effect of the incident on the child, whitethorn also bedevil a claim for psychological damage against the nursery brought about by the latters negligence.In the recent case of Jones v BBC, 2007 WL 2187023 (QBD), where Jones, a freelance sound recordist for defendant BBC claimed that he suffered personal injury when a windmill rotor fell onto his back causing severe spinal injury make him paraplegic. In ruling for the claimant, the court stated that since BBCs base hit crew had identified a risk of infection of the falling mast, a discussion before filming should have been made to warn the crew not to go beneath it. But the safety crew did not give the warning. Such failure of BBC, through the safety crew, is considered negligent which caused Jones accident. Thus, the BBC was liable for Jones injuries. Also, the camera operator and Jones worked as a team because their equipment was linked. Jones with his equipment was following the cameraman who had decided to pass beneath the mast thereby leading Jones into the hazardous area. The cameraman was then in ruptureed of his employment of care and the BBC was vicariously liable for that negligence. In Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company, Limited v English, 1938 A.C. 57, the House of Lords stated as follows primarily the maestro has a duty to take due care to bequeath and maintain a reasonably safe system of working in the mine, and a master, who has delegated the duty of taking due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working to a adapted servant, is responsible for a blot in the system of which he had no knowledge By the Jones and Wilsons cases, it is clear that the employer is under a duty of care to provide the employee with competent fellow employees including a qualified medical personnel, properly maintained site and facilities, and to provide a safe place and system of work. The question of whether t he employer breached that duty of care depends on the example of care owed by the employer to its employee and whether it has taken reasonable steps considering the circumstances. (Latimer v A.E.C. Ltd.1953) In Jones, the breach of the employers duty consists in BBCs failure (through its safety crew) to discuss with the cameraman and Jones the risk of the falling mast and to warn the cameraman and Jones in unequivocal terms that they must not go beneath it. In Wilsons, the breach by the employer consists of its failure to provide competent fellow employees, properly maintained mine and equipment, and to provide a safe place and system of work. In the case of Ina here, the failure of the employer to provide competent fellow employees and to properly provide and maintain a safe place and system of work which caused the employees disability to work for three (3) months constitute a breach of the standard of care required of the employer. Jacks negligence in leaving the drill on the fl oor in a place where thirty (30) toddlers freely verify about constitutes a negligent act for which the employer must be held vicariously responsible. The nursery cannot invoke the defence that Jack is merely a hired self-employed carpenter because as the court stated in the Jones case the BBC had clearly assumed a responsibility for the health and safety of freelancers when they were working on BBC productions that was combining weight to that of an employer to a direct employee. Jack should have been more careful with his tools because it can reasonably be expected