Betty went to the cinema to watch the premiere of Hulk Mister. She bought the ticket and went into the cinema. As she sat down on the chair, the legs of the chair broke and she fell onto the ground injuring her lower back. It turned out that the chair was previously broken and has not been properly repaired by the staff of the cinema. She was hospitalised for a month and could not work during the time she was in the hospital. Required: Betty wants to start legal proceedings to claim damages from the cinema for the injury. Advise her of the legal grounds on which she can claim compensation from the cinema and discuss, with reference to relevant legal principles and cases, the necessary steps that Betty needs to go through in order to prove her case.

Betty went to the cinema to watch the premiere of Hulk Mister. She bought the ticket and went into the cinema. As she sat down on the chair, the legs of the chair broke and she fell onto the ground injuring her lower back. It turned out that the chair was previously broken and has not been properly repaired by the staff of the cinema. She was hospitalised for a month and could not work during the time she was in the hospital. Required: Betty wants to start legal proceedings to claim damages from the cinema for the injury. Advise her of the legal grounds on which she can claim compensation from the cinema and discuss, with reference to relevant legal principles and cases, the necessary steps that Betty needs to go through in order to prove her case.

Similar questions

John Beck was injured at the Drive-Thru at Taco Bell when an impatient driver behind him fired his gun at John’s car. When would Taco Bell be liable for John’s injuries? a. Taco Bell would be liable if John was negligent. b. Taco Bell is always liable for John’s injuries because he is an invitee. c. Taco Bell could never be liable for John’s injuries. d. Taco Bell would be liable if the firing of the shot was foreseeable.
27. Vicarious liability refers to a situation where: the employer is held legally responsible for actions of its employees the employer serves alcohol at company-sponsored events the onus is on the employer to prove it was not negligent none of the above
Assume for the purposes of this part of the question that Cherie is able to play, but trips and falls on some loose flooring and twists her ankle badly. One of the council employees tells her that the flooring has been loose for some time and should have been repaired. Explain the following: What is the legal case that Cherie could take against the Council? (Give full details of the principles and how they would apply in this scenario). If Cherie commenced an action, what remedies would she be seeking?
Lucy cannot stand the fact that her ex-husband, Ethan, is about to get remarried. After all, it was a horrible breakup, and Ethan was really mean to her. Lucy decides to get her revenge by telling Ethan’s employer that Ethan stole large amounts of money from his previous employer, even though Lucy knows it is not true. If Lucy follows through on her plan, she will have: a) not committed the tort of defamation because the statement would not harm Ethan’s reputation. b) committed the tort of defamation because it is an untrue statement intended to harm Ethan’s reputation, and she stated it to another person. c) not committed the tort of defamation, because she only made the statement to one person.
Business Tort of Negligence Dewayne, a driver for Speedy Delivery Company, leaves the truck's motor running in neutral and carelessly forgets to set the parking brake while making a delivery. The truck rolls and crashes into a nearby gas station pump, igniting a fire that spreads quickly to a construction site a block away. A burned wall collapses onto a crane, which falls on Fazio, a bystander, and injures him. What must Fazio show to recover damages from Speedy Delivery? If you are the attorney for Speedy Delivery what would be your best defense argument? Your paper should be between 500-750 words, with at least two cited external resources. View your assignment rubric. ROLK LOVE
Describe what is intoxication in law and explain how a person can avoid a contract entered into under intoxication using the case law: gore v gibson
Dr. Susan Rice asks Bruce Goldman, CMA (AAMA), to instruct patient Dottie Tate in the use of a walker to prevent further falls at home. Dottie is silent as Dr. Rice leaves the examination room and Bruce proceeds to set the walker correctly. However, when Dottie sees that Bruce must once again put Dottie in a gait belt for her protection—the belt was used earlier in the examination to assess Dottie’s ability to ambulate—the patient gets feisty. She is visibly tired and ready to go home. “I’ll learn to use the walker if I have to, but I won’t wear that belt. It makes me feel like a baby. And it’s such a bother. Who wants to go through all that? We just don’t need it.” Answer the following questions, which are also found in the Reflection Activity for Chapter 32 of the textbook: What is the best action of the medical assistant? What is the best therapeutic response of the medical assistant? Could the situation have been avoided? If so, how? If not, why not?
What is the legal definition of Minor Breach and Material Breach? What are the legal ramifications of both? May the non-breaching party rescind the contract with either breach.
Alan rents a flat in a block of units in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. One summer evening, during a balcony BBQ, Alan tosses several empty beer cans onto the adjoining balcony of the flat rented by Jimmy. What redress in law, if any, does Jimmy have?
A woman shopper was injured when she slipped on the tiled foyer of a supermarket, which was wet after rain. The defendant argued that it wasn’t responsible for the slippery condition of the floor, and that it owed no general duty of care in negligence. As it had mopped the floor to minimise danger to customers, there was no unusual danger that would give rise to a strict liability on the occupier. How do you think a court might assess the defendant’s claim of no liability?
how does the law currently define "undue hardship" with regards to religious accommodation? Is this determination based solely on the business' cost associated with the accommodation?
Alden had her car radiator repaired by Smokey Garage for $125. She was not happy with the results and decided to sue the garage owner to get her money back. In what court would her case most likely be heard? Why?