RSM 225 Assignments #2
Business Law – Fall 2012
Instructor: Daniel R. Shear
“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”
Legal Issue #1 - Who should be responsible for the men with the broken wrist?
Background: On the final night of the haunt, there were two young men who ignored the sign that said "danger, upper balcony unsafe - this is NOT part of the tour" and went upstairs to use the bathroom. Due to that fact that the renovation was not done, thus, plumbing was not fully attached As a result, after they flushed…show more content…
Plus, the reason for one of them to fall is because of the fact that they flushed the toilet with a unfinished plumbing, causing the water to spill, and made the floor wet, as a result, the man slipped and broke the wrist. Therefore, these two young man should share the liability for this accident. (2) Other defendant: Other defendants might be Leanne and also the contractor that is responsible for the renovation. (3) Vicarious liability: There is also no vicarious liability for this case.
2. Leanne: As a tenant who rent her parents theatre for one week, also the one that is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises, she is also consider being the occupier. For Leanne’s case, if she is below 18, then the contract between her and her parents are invalid, then she could not be sued. Otherwise she should be going through the following 4+3 negligence analysis as same as her parents.
4-Step Analysis: (1) Duty of care: As I have mentioned before, since the accident happened in haunted theatre was during the time Leanne rented from her parents, plus the activity on that night was under Leanne’s control, so that she automatically had the duty to make sure everyone is safe no