Summary

Summary: Marie-Claude operated a bowling alley which is adjacent to a residential area.
Many small children used the parking lot near the bowling alley as a playground, and
Marie-Clause constantly warned them they might get injured. But a child climb onto the
flat roof of the bowling alley while Marie-Claude was not there, fell to the ground and
got sincere injured. Whose responsibility of this case?
For plaintiff: The owner of the building has been already warned those children do not
climb up to the roof, Meanwhile, those children’s parents have responsibilities to look
after their kids. According to the concept of Foreseeability, a child does not hold liable in
tort if they are in tender age. As the case states, the child’s age is 6. The child can’t be
recognized as a liable person, which means he cannot foresee the injury to himself.
Although Marie-Claude has ordered the child off the roof for several times, Marie-Claude
is still responsible for protecting the child form injury.
For defendant: As a building owner, Marie-Claude was constantly asking the children
keep far from the parking lot, she did her best to protect the children from injury, from
the duty of care perspective. She warned those children(trespassers) many times, and
minimized the risk. Because she is operating a bowling alley, she can’t always in the
parking lot and warning those children, so this might be a compensatory damage or
nominal damage

x

Hi!
I'm Martha!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out