HA2022 BUSINESS LAW TRIMESTER 2, 2012 RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT Assessment Value: 20% Instructions: 1....

Question

HA2022 BUSINESS LAW TRIMESTER 2, 2012 RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT Assessment Value: 20% Instructions: 1. This research assignment is to be submitted in accordance with the Holmes Institute submission policy. 2. Due date of submission is 5pm, Friday 21st September XXXXXXXXXXLate submission will be treated in accordance with the Holmes Institute submission policy. 4. This assignment consists of two questions. Each question is worth 10 marks. 5. Maximum marks available are 20 marks. 6. You should refer to the prescribed textbook, other recommended textbook, and relevant Acts and cases in your answer. 7. Maximum word length is 2000 words. Student Name: ……………………………………………… (Block letters) Student Number: Question 1 A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in a collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with a system known as ‘dead man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and inefficient. There was no evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning. Question 2 Jonas was employed by Rapid Couriers as a courier. His father was employed at the same company and worked with his son. One day while making a delivery, the son lost sight of his father, who was directing him, and accidentally ran over him. Discuss whether the father would successfully sue his employer.
	
Document Preview: Student Name: 
……………………………………………… 
 
(Block letters)

Student Number:

HA2022 BUSINESS LAW 
TRIMESTER 2, 2012 
RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT

Assessment Value: 20% 
 
Instructions:

1. This research assignment is to be submitted in accordance with the Holmes 
Institute submission policy. 
2. Due date of submission is 5pm, Friday 21st September 2012. 
3. Late submission will be treated in accordance with the Holmes Institute 
submission policy. 
4. This assignment consists of two questions. Each question is worth 10 marks. 
5. Maximum marks available are 20 marks. 
6. You should refer to the prescribed textbook, other recommended textbook, and 
relevant Acts and cases in your answer. 
7. Maximum word length is 2000 words.Question 1 
 
A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in a collision with another tram, which occurred 
after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have 
been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with a system known as ‘dead 
man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and 
avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it 
was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and inefficient. There was no 
evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the 
plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning. 
 
Question 2 
Jonas was employed by Rapid Couriers as a courier. His father was employed at the same 
company and worked with his son. One day while making a delivery, the son lost sight of 
his father, who was directing him, and accidentally ran over him. Discuss whether the 
father would successfully sue his employer.

David · Accepted Answer

Business Law
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW
1
PAGE  
2
BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name
Institution
Business Law
Sydney Tramway Passenger vs. Tramway Authority
Negligence is failure to perform an act, which a sensible individual would or would not do if faced with certain circumstances. In this way, these actions result in damage, destruction, or injury of other individuals. The Australian Civil Liability Act 1936, points out that an individual is accountable for actions that one engages in negligence. This act states that a person can legally sue another person for negligence, and get financial reimbursement. Those that seek this lawsuit hope to attain the initial state they had before the negligence act occurred. Many negligence situations occur during car accidents causing harm to an individual, property, or land (Showers, 1999, pp. 21-22).
Yes, the plaintiff will succeed in the claim against the tramway authority for negligence. This is because the tramway authority owes the passengers the “duty of care”. This means that the company authority had a duty to see what is safe or harmful for the public before starting their operations. The company violated this duty by allowing the train driver to work without installation of the “Dead Man’s Handle”. This system would have ensured that the tram stops in case of any danger or if the driver fails to control it. In this case, the tram in question did have the dead man’s handle installed, and as a result, the driver collapsed and tram collided with another on the tramway causing severe damage. The plaintiff has the right to be compensated for this harm to attain the status he had before the accident occurred. The negligence of the company’s authority caused tremendous damage to many passengers in the train, including the plaintiff (Latimer, 1999, p. 252).
The plaintiff’s success is also guaranteed because of the injury suffered from the accident. The injuries sustained in the accident hinder the plaintiff from performing normal duties. This requires compensation in order to retain the previous state the individual held before the accident. The injury was also caused because of negligence and breach of duty that the company owes to passengers. The company operated the train without checking the due consequences of fatigue on drivers. This led to the collapse of the driver on his duty, which caused bigger harm on the passenger. The nature of negligence is further revealed on how the driver is incapable of operating in a situation where other means would have prevented such incidents. The driver would not collapse if the company installed a system that ensured safety at all times (Latimer 1999, p. 252).
In Australia, every company or individual has a responsibility of duty of care to avoid any damage. The duty of care comes up when there is a foreseeable harm due to lack of proper measures being followed. The company knew that “Dead man’s handle” would prevent fatigue and loss of control for drivers, but ignored this detail. There is an adequate relationship between passengers and trains to warrant a duty of care. Here, “a proximate cause” of the accident occurred because of negligence of the company to the passengers’ safety. For instance, the case of Pacif Movers Corporation Ltd, a finance organisation, which sued Eletric Union and their auditors for disregarding to notify theft within the organisation. There were irregular features in loans made to Estates Group, a company associated with Eletric Union. The Eletric Union auditors were ruled negligent and Pacif Movers was given two million dollars for damages caused (Latimer,

HA2022 BUSINESS LAW TRIMESTER 2, 2012 RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT Assessment Value: 20% Instructions: 1. This research assignment is to be submitted in accordance with the Holmes Institute submission policy....

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment