LegalAspects of Business Law
LegalAspects of Business Law
Accidents,whether fatal or mild can happen at any moment during dailyactivities. Places of leisure can also be sources of injury and harm.At any point in time, people who take part in fitness centeractivities can encounter injury due to the interaction with themoving parts of machines or the weights used for lifting. In thepast, business establishments have had to take liability for thedamages experienced by their customers for failure to assure theirsafety. It is indeed a fact that there is always a likelihood of someform of misfortune regardless of the area of activity. In theworkplace, it is the duty of the employer to protect the employee,and in this case, the premise has a responsibility of safeguardingthe welfare of the customers who are exercising.
Moreoften than not, businesses and companies have had lawsuits concerningfailure to prevent injury and protecting their workers. It is typicalto see corporates facing legal liability especially when theirnegligence causes harm. Interestingly, even in scenarios where thecustomers’ actions resulted in an injury, the companies are stillheld responsible for putting in place safety measures as long as theevent took place on the business’s premises and during theorganization’s working hours.
Anyparticular corporation has to develop safety guidelines for allaspects of operations, in which failure to do so translates to severelegal and financial repercussions. This paper, therefore, looks at acase study in which a gym client was severely injured while workingout and determines the legal aspects related to negligence claims,possible defenses and the likelihood of being compensated [ CITATION Pan16 l 1033 ].
Adviceon the Possibility of Success
Understrict circumstances, it is considered the responsibility of the gymowners to protect their patrons within the premises and especiallyduring open hours of business. This is based on the doctrine that abusiness owner has to anticipate a particular risk, assess it, afterthat develop, and implement the necessary safety measures. Accordingto the law, a case for negligence requires four primary facets. Theseinclude the owed duty of protection to the plaintiff, a breach of theobligation mentioned above, causation of harm by the defendant anddamages experienced by the plaintiff.
Thesefour criteria form the baseline for establishing whether a negligencecase can be forwarded with success. As such, the situation purportsthat the caretaker or gym assistant did not perform her duties to theutmost levels. Likewise, the owner of the center did not take part inthe follow-up process to find out whether the employee was performingthe allocated duties or not. Additionally, the employer possibly didnot assign sufficient staff for the maintenance of the items sinceonly one person managed 100 units.
Apparently,we have established that the gym owes a reasonable duty of care toall their clients. There is foreseeability of imminent danger to thecustomers that are in a danger zone created by the defendant who didnot put the necessary measures by proper maintenance of devices andmachines. Secondly, the defendant breached the duty throughnegligence per se or via Res Ipsa Loquitour. To a certain extent,there is a reason to indicate that the defendant caused harm to takeplace. By not performing regular checks and repairs, there was anincreased likelihood that the machines could break down and causedamage, an aspect that was blatantly ignored by the appropriateindividuals. Concerning the damages, it is evident that theplaintiff, Ann, has been severely harmed to the level of having to betaken ill for up to a month. Furthermore, she had to undergoexpensive treatment interventions during that time.
Despitethe fact that the above tests indicate a possible liability to thegym supervisor and her employee, other factors may need to beassessed. First, there are possible defenses against negligence thatare likely to be raised. Contributory negligence is one of thepossible arguments where both Ann and the gym contributed to the act.This can be a relevant issue if the plaintiff used or handled themachine in a way that was wrong, hence leading to the injury. Anotherdefense is the assumption of risk that is represented by the abilityof the client to understand the danger yet continued using the unsafeequipment (Lunney & Oliphan, 2013). The third and last defense isassociated with customary practice where everyone else does notservice or check their equipment as often. It is a common practicenot to perform routine maintenance.
Basedon these two different legal viewpoints, the evidence leans heavilytowards the support of the client Ann. This is because the casepasses all the four tests of prima facie for negligence. Theplaintiff, on the other hand, may not be liable since she was onlyconcerned with working out knowing that the equipment was safe. Ontop of that, the caretaker and the employee specifically failed toadhere to the duty of care to the customers. Worst-case scenario forAnn is that both the plaintiff and the defendant share the liabilityif it is proven that she also contributed to the negligent act.
Lunney, M. & Oliphan, K. (2013). Defences to Negligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panter, Panter & Sampedro, P.A. (2016, April 28). Gyms and liability: Who`s to blame? Retrieved from Panter Law: http://www.panterlaw.com/blog/2016/04/gyms-and-liability-whos-to-blame.shtml