The next case I will be discussing will be Bronwynn. Bronwynn was let unattended at the gym by the employees on duty as they knew she was an experienced member. Bronwynn suffered back injury due to faulty equipment, which then made Bronwynn to decide that she will resume her studies in the next year after her recovery. Bronwynn may want to sue the gym in breach of condition of negligence and breach of contract, which she may potentially have a contract of Sale of Goods 1979 .
Under the Employees Liability Act 1969 , if the equipment is defective due to the fault of a third party, such as the manufacturer, the employer may be held liable even though they are not personally to blame and could not have known the defect. ProwFit is a well-known manufacturer. They have a contract of Supply of Goods and Services Act (SGASA) 1982 with IUG. ProwFit could be in breach of contract , because of the faulty machine. However, it states that they cannot accept liability for any defects or injury caused by the machine after six months guarantee period. IUG has had the machine for ten months and therefore, the workers should have checked whether the machine was still in good condition. In this case, Bronwynn can sue for negligence under the duty of care. The worker has a duty of care to Bronwynn under s2 (2) OLA 1957 in making sure the gym is a safe place for students (Maloney v Torfean …show more content…
They breached the duty of care by unintentionally leaving Bronwynn unattended. The university is under a legal obligation to provide a safe environment for all students and employees - Health and
Under the Employees Liability Act 1969 , if the equipment is defective due to the fault of a third party, such as the manufacturer, the employer may be held liable even though they are not personally to blame and could not have known the defect. ProwFit is a well-known manufacturer. They have a contract of Supply of Goods and Services Act (SGASA) 1982 with IUG. ProwFit could be in breach of contract , because of the faulty machine. However, it states that they cannot accept liability for any defects or injury caused by the machine after six months guarantee period. IUG has had the machine for ten months and therefore, the workers should have checked whether the machine was still in good condition. In this case, Bronwynn can sue for negligence under the duty of care. The worker has a duty of care to Bronwynn under s2 (2) OLA 1957 in making sure the gym is a safe place for students (Maloney v Torfean …show more content…
They breached the duty of care by unintentionally leaving Bronwynn unattended. The university is under a legal obligation to provide a safe environment for all students and employees - Health and