本文主要敘述案例研究分析，鑑於目前的情況，很明顯，布魯克受傷完全是由於山谷市議會(VCC)的疏忽。這個標誌應該在湖的深處和淺層都豎立起來，這樣遊客們就會有同樣的感覺。如果布魯克知道她滑雪的地方有淺水，這場事故本來是很容易避免的。由於布魯克的脊椎嚴重受傷，她可以起訴山谷市議會，要求承擔護理責任。 1936年《民事責任法》(SA)和2002年《新南威爾士州民事責任法》(NSW)也可作為案例研究的參考。本篇幫寫論文文章由英國論文人EducationRen教育網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
Given the current situation, it is clearly visible that Brooke got hurt due to sheer negligence of Valley City Council (VCC). The sign should have been erected at both deep and shallow parts of the lake so that visitors are aware of the same. This accident could have easily been prevented if Brooke would have known that where she is skiing has shallow water. Since Brooke has suffered serious injuries in her spine, she can sue Valley City Council and demand duty of care. The Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) and Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) can also be referred in this case study.
Referring to the case Digby v The Compass Institute Inc. and Anor [2015] QSC 308, the plaintiff in this case was appointed by the institute on the position of support worker. The plaintiff was supposed to give a presentation and demonstration on how to deal with danger from strangers. A police personal also attending the presentation, had activated the siren causing severe injury on clients shoulder. The client experienced severe pain and tremors in the right hand. The doctors also confirmed that the client suffered from a severe psychiatric injury. Instructions were given to the police officer regarding the activation of the alarm which were not followed properly and led to an injury. The judge in this case was Mr. Atkinson who decided that the plaintiff should be given $ 50,924.19 as work cover benefits on a weekly basis. The judge also asked the employer to pay $ 158,045 to the plaintiff for general damages and loss (austlii.edu.au, n.d.).
Based on the case mentioned above, it can be clearly asserted that Brooke has legal rights to sue the city council for negligence which caused serious injuries to her spine. She can also demand compensation for physical treatment and general damages.
The current case study indicates that both Miyuki and Public Transport Corporation are at fault. When Miyuki paid $1.10 to use the toilet, it became the responsibility of public transport corporation to ensure doors of all toilets are fully functional. Regular checks must have been performed on a daily basis by the public transportation corporation. From the point of view of Miyuki, she suffered injury due to negligence of public transport corporation. After being trapped in the toilet, she called for help but no one was there to assist her. I also feel that public transport corporation should have provided an attendant on the door of the toilet to assist the public in case of any issues. It is still unclear whether PTC breached the duty of care which they owed to Miyuki. However, Miyuki can still claim in civil court for the damages and injuries caused to her. The previous five cases against the government also comprise of two sexual assaults in which the victim was also brutally thrashed by the perpetrator (Joewono & Kubota, 2006).
英國論文人EducationRen教育網深得廣大客戶的支持和厚愛。我們的服務目標：締造精品，善待一生!我們的服務宗旨：誠信至上，服務至上，客戶至上!我們的服務理念：專業專注，優質服務!如果需要了解英國論文代寫價錢，就點擊上方欄目列表，各種代寫論文服務等著你，客服24小時在線，歡迎諮詢!…