Online Exam

A) Several months have passed and Jack’s knee has not recovered. He may need a knee reconstruction. Is Priscilla Tours liable in negligence for Jack’s injuries? What, if any, defenses could they rely on? What would you advise Priscilla to do differently in future? (15 marks)

Priscilla tours is liable as negligence has been shown through the failure of providing reasonable care and skill resulting in accidental harm towards the client (Jack)

Duty of Care

In order to establish duty of care the specific court must agree to the satisfaction that at the time in question when the plaintiff’s harm took place, it was overall foreseeable that the reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have insight of the type of harm that evidently occurred due to the action (or inaction) of the defendant causing harm to the plaintiff’s in position. This has been extracted from the ‘neighbor principle’ established from Donoghue v Stevenson. In this situation, Priscilla Tours does owe Jack and Thea a duty of care as Priscilla has taken them under guide and is responsible as it is reasonably foreseeable that due to torrential rain around Broken Hill in March 2016 that flooding would occur resulting in a detour and leading them to unknown territory where it was decided to find a new sight however the walk was steeper and longer than many of the tourists expected, and there were a lot of loose rocks on the trail leading up the hill which had never undertaken by previous tours groups of that age group thus meaning there may be potential for an individual to have an accidental injury. This fact situation is very similar to the facts in Donoghue v Stevenson, where a bottle of ginger beer that was purchased and partly consumed contained a snail. The bottle had been purchased by a separate party and consumed by a separate individual, this did not prevent the woman from prevailing in the case against the producer of the ginger beer. The ‘neighbour principle’ that was developed...