Procedural Requirements and Shared Liability

Question: Discuss about the Procedural Requirements and Shared Liability. Answer: Introduction: We are acting on behalf of the defendant, John Jones in this matter. The plaintiff Jean Symmons served a claim and statement of claim to our client on 5 August 2015. The plaintiff filed the claim and statement of claim in the Brisbane District Court on 3 August 2015. The claim made by the plaintiff arose out of an accident that took place in our clients premises on Friday, 10 January 2015. The plaintiff claimed that our client has been negligent in cleaning up the broken glass and liquid from the dance floor due to which the plaintiff slipped on the glass and sustained deep laceration on her left hand. The injury was so severe that she had number of stitches which prevented her from going to work for 6 to 8 weeks suffering financial loss. Our client denies her allegation stating that she was already drunk when she entered the dance floor. The night club was congested therefore our client had proper system to ensure that there are no spillages or broken glasses on the dance floor. Bill Right, an employee, was given the responsibility to clean mop the dance floor to ensure safety. Further, the DJ, Jack Cleaner was asked to warn people not to come on the dance floor with glasses in their hands. Furthermore, people who accompanied the plaintiff that night supported that she was intoxicated and fell down while trying to put the glass down. Our client accepts that the plaintiff did slip on the dance floor on the date in question and consequently sustained severe injuries on her left hand. Our client agrees that he owes a duty of care to all guests and the patrons entering into his night club. However, our client denies that he was responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The contention of our client may be supported by the legislations researched that the plaintiff contributed to her own injuries because of her state of intoxication that night (Levy, Golden Sacks, 2016). Section 9 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) states that a person does not commit a breach a duty to take precautions against any risk of harm unless such person could foresee the harm or the risk was not insignificant or any prudent person would have taken precautions under such circumstances. Section 12 stipulates that burden of proof is on the plaintiff who has to establish based on balance of probabilities that there was a breach of duty (Shavell, 2013). Section 23 of the Act emphasizes that to prove that the aggrieved person was not guilty of contributory negligence, he must establish that required standard of care was maintained by him as would have been maintained by any prudent person (Goudkamp Nolan, 2016). Section 47 of the Act states that if the aggrieved person was intoxicated at the time of breach of duty, it shall be presumed that the person is guilty of contributory negligence and is prevented from claiming damages (Antieau, 2016). However, if the aggrieved person can establish that the intoxication did not contribute to breach of duty or that it was not self-induced, the presumption may be rebutted. Section 24 defeats the claim for damages in case of contributory negligence and court may decide a reduction of 100% if it deems to be it just and equitable to do so. Conclusion In the case study, the plaintiff must establish on the balance of probabilities that she sustained injuries because of breach of duty of care by the night club owner. However, our client may use the defence of contributory negligence and might have to pay less damages or the claim for damage may be defeated. In this case, the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on a dance floor at the Rockhampton Rugby League Football club premises. As the dance floor was crowded she had to walk around the couples dancing and while taking a turn she slipped. The plaintiff alleged that something had fallen off a tray on to the dance floor which caused her to slip. There was no evidence that there was any spillage on the dance floor and her claim was dismissed. The plaintiff attended the Gladstone Ten Pin Bowling Alley. She claims that she slipped as the lights were deemed and she sustained leg fracture. The defendant was found to be liable for committing breach of duty of care and the plaintiff was found to be liable to the extent of 40% as well. The defendant had a duty of care on the premises and due to dim lights the plaintiff slipped. The defendant was awarded to pay damages. In this matter the plaintiff has filed a Claim and Statement of Claim in the Brisbane District Court on 3 August 2015. The claim and statement of claim was served to our client on 5 August 2015. From the brief observations it is understood that the plaintiff has raised various issues that lead us to think that there is a probability that our client may have a feasible defence against the claim made by the plaintiff. The statutory provisions, relevant cases and other relevant documents have been attached with the brief supports the contention of the defendant. Reference list Levy, N. M., Golden, M. M., Sacks, L. (2016).Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses(Vol. 1). California Torts. Goudkamp, J., Nolan, D. (2016). Contributory Negligence in Practice. Antieau, C. J. (2016). Procedural Requirements and Shared Liability.Antieau on Local Government Law, Second Edition,3. Shavell, S. (2013). A fundamental enforcement cost advantage of the negligence rule over regulation.The Journal of Legal Studies,42(2), 275-302. Garrett v North Rockhampton Sports Recreation Club Inc Anor [2002] QSC 044 Kathryn Joan Windley v Gazaland Pty Ltd Trading as Gladstone Ten Pin Bowl [2014] QDC