https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h Research the cases given to you and write a short summary of the facts and the legal principle decided. Post it below! en-us 2017-04-04 06:01:55 UTC 2017-04-04 09:43:10 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Balance.png https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555153 Fire services were called to release a woman trapped under a car. The equipment they needed wasn't on the truck and wouldnt fit on. A fireman was holdig it but the truck broke and the equpment fell off onto someones leg causing injury.

There was no breach of duty as the emergency of the situation outweighed the need to take precautions.


]]> 2017-04-04 09:09:09 UTC https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555153 https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555157 Claimant only had sight in one eye. Whilst working at a garage a splinter of metal went in his sighted eye. This cause him to be blind, he wasn't wearing goggles, because nobody wore these as it was not standard practice. 
There was a breach of duty, the employer should provide goggles to all staff.

]]> 2017-04-04 09:09:12 UTC https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555157 https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555360 Miss Stone was injured as a result of being struck in the head by a cricket ball outside her home from the near by cricket field on Beckenham Road.
The court found that the cricket field was not in breach of duty with cricket balls only going over the fence five or six times in the past 30 years. The likelihood of harm was low with the defendant taking all practical precautions.]]> 2017-04-04 09:10:32 UTC https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555360 https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555369 Nettleship agreed to get in the car with Weston who was a learner driver.  He also checked that she was covered for passengers.  When in the car with her she turned a corner and although he tried to stop her she went into a lamp post.  He sustained a fractured knee.  She argued the standard should be lowered for learner drivers and that he had accepted the risk by getting in the car.  However, a learner driver is  expected to meet the same standard. His damages were reduced by 50% under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 to reflect the degree to which he was also at fault.]]> 2017-04-04 09:10:37 UTC https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555369 https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555677 The claimant slipped on a factory floor which was flooded. The defendant (AEC) put up warning signs, mopped up and placed sawdust in the most used places to make it as safe as possible. AEC was not liable and there was no breach of duty. The judge ruled that there would be great expense to eliminate any possible risk because of the flood damage, and thus no obligation to close the factory.]]> 2017-04-04 09:12:12 UTC https://padlet.com/glenn_roberts/3h0annwcz23h/wish/164555677