LAMPOSTS CLAIM IN THE LAW OF TORT Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

LAMPOSTS CLAIM IN THE LAW OF TORT - Case Study Example But the safety crew did not give the warning. Such failure of BBC, through the safety crew, is considered negligent which caused Jones' accident. Thus, the BBC was liable for Jones' injuries. The cameraman and Jones worked as a team because their equipment was linked. Jones with his equipment was following the cameraman who had decided to pass beneath the mast thereby leading Jones into the hazardous area. The cameraman was then in breached of his duty of care and the BBC was vicariously liable for that negligence. In Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company, Limited v English, [1938] A.C. 57, the House of Lords stated as follows: " primarily the master has a duty to take due care to provide and maintain a reasonably safe system of working in the mine, and a master, who has delegated the duty of taking due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working to a competent servant, is responsible for a defect in the system of which he had no knowledge" Breach of Employer's Duty. Following the rulings in the Jones and Wilsons cases, it is clear that the football club is under a duty of care to provide Lampost with competent fellow employees, properly maintained site and facilities, and to provide a safe place and system of work. The question of whether the football club breached that duty of care depends on the standard of care owed by the defendant football club to its employee and whether it has taken reasonable steps considering the circumstances. (Latimer v A.E.C. Ltd.[1953]) In Jones, the breach of the employer's duty consists in BBC's failure (through its safety crew) to discuss with the cameraman and Jones the risk of the falling mast and to warn the cameraman and Jones in unequivocal terms that they must not go beneath it. In Wilsons, the breach by the employer consists of its failure to provide competent fellow employees, properly maintained mine and equipment, and to provide a safe place and system of work. In the case of Lampost, the failure of the football club to provide sufficient number of medical personnel and immediate treatment which caused Lampost's permanent limp and disability to play professional football constitutes a breach of the standard care required of the football club. Under the circumstances, having only one emergency doctor during a match is far from meeting the reasonable standard of care. First, it can reasonably be expected that injuries are bound to occur in a football match because, by the very nature of the game alone, it is physically strenuous and demanding. Second, it is a mathematical fact that the game is played by at least 22 players and having only one doctor during a match clearly does not meet the required standard of care. Third, considering that it was a premiership match, it can reasonably be expected that players are more competitive than usual and thus, injuries are bound to result from the matches. Hence, the football club should have hired more than one do ctor. Moreover, following McDermid v Nash Dredging and Reclamation Co. Ltd. [1987], it can also be inferred that the football club is in breach