Bachelor of Business

Posted on May 25, 2018 by Cheapest Assignment

Order Now
  1. The primary (ie, first) judge found that Verryt (the car driver) was liable to Schoupp (the boy) for the injuries he suffered. Using the template below analyse the facts in this case to explain fully the reasoning the judge would have followed in applying the law to come to this legal conclusion. [5 marks]

    Legal element Facts which satisfy the legal element

    Bachelor of Business

  2. The primary judge also found that Schoupp (the boy) had been careless about his own safety in four ways. However, the judge only took account of three of those ways in assessing the boy’s responsibility for own injuries (ie, he disregarded one of them).
    (a) What were the four acts of carelessness by the boy? [2 marks]
    (b) Which of the four did the judge disregard and for what legal reason did he take no account of it? [2 marks]
  3. Despite finding that the boy was partly responsible for his own injuries the primary judge decided the driver should bear total responsibility (blame). What reason did the primary judge give for coming to this conclusion? [3 marks]
  4. In the appeal the Court did not consider whether the actions of either the driver or the boy had broken any statutory rule of the road. Explain why the question of whether any road rule had been broken was not relevant to the legal issue the Court of Appeal was deciding. [2 marks]
  5. The Court of Appeal took a different view from that of the primary judge (as described in question 3) and said the boy must bear at least some blame. On the basis of what facts did the Court of Appeal come to this conclusion? [2 marks]
  6. Despite concluding the boy must bear part of the blame the Court of Appeal said that it should be only a small part (ie, 10%). Explain the Court of Appeal’s ratio (ie, reasoning) in coming to this conclusion. [2 marks]
  7. The Court of Appeal declared that the driver was responsible for the safe functioning of the vehicle and ‘skitching’ was not a safe function. What precedent (ie, principle having a wider application that to just this case) is the Court of Appeal expressing here which could apply to other persons in charge of cars, or a power boat on the water, or persons supervising activities where others (adults or children) are involved? [2 marks]

LS5012 Research Methods in Sport and Exercise


Order Now