You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Case Study: Homeowners file a tort claim against a theme park
Pages 9 (2259 words)
William Prosser in his Handbook of the Law of Torts sets tort as a term “applied to different and more or less unconnected group of civil wrongs other than breach of contract for which a court of law will afford a remedy in the form of an action for damages.”
There seems no doubt that the management of the Ashenhurst amusement and theme park has a duty of care in seeing to it that its operations do not cause harm to the village residents, some of whom assume a “sufficient relationship of proximity and neighborhood” with the park. The main offenses for which the park could be held liable are the torts of negligence and nuisance as well as for intentional and statutory torts. The traffic and noise from the rides are forms of nuisance, whereas the water seepage from the water ride and the overflow of garbage from the park amount to acts of negligence. As for intentional tort, the law says the theme park management is liable for this offense if it acted the way it did although it could have reasonably foreseen the harm that it would cause (Barker & Padfield). Based on the Occupier’s Liability Act in UK, the park is also answerable for statutory tort if it never attempted to take health and safety measures to avoid causing harm to its neighbors. However, it has to be proven if the park management breached its duty of care as determined by the accepted tests and principles of tort. ...
Not exactly what you need?