Homeowners file a tort claim against a theme park Case Study

Homeowners file a tort claim against a theme place - Case Study Exampleto 7 p.m. on that point was nary a moment of peace for the village residents since then because of Roads clogged with traffic. On opening day of the amusement viridity itself, roads to and from the village were impassable, such that the take out tanker that regularly picks up milk from the dairy farm of Farmer Green could not get in. When the tanker came the next day, the 1,500 liters of milk it was supposed to pick up the previous day was already spoiled, which translated to a big loss for Farmer Green. Noise. Screams from the Haunted House and rides at the park celebrate Ms. Bourne, who works night shifts at hospital, from sleeping at home by day. Mr. Goode, who runs a wildlife sanctuary nearby, also says the hitch causes distress to his animals. Carelessness in slobber disposal. The daily drivel from the theme park is collected in man-made waste bays placed alongside the road, which often contain more th an the amount of garbage that they can hold. Such overloading caused one waste bay to fracture, spilling rotten food that pollutes Farmer Greens land.Errant water from a multi-level log-flume water ride. Water from this facility seeps through a crack and collects behind the wall separating the park from the railway tracks. As the water level increased, the pressure toppled the wall and caused a landslide that busted a sewer pipe owned by the local water company.Principles of Tort The tort law is characterized by a loose set of relatively defraud principles, which allow maximum discretion to be exercised by reference to common-sense values (Hocking & Smith, 1996).4 Thus, the judgment on whether the Ashenhurst Village residents...In criminal law, the state is portrayed as the big offended party than the plaintiff such that if a defendant is proven guilty the state metes out the appropriate punishment. It is different in tort cases, in which the plaintiff, whose more popular assigna tion now is claimant, is the victim of the alleged wrong. There seems no doubt that the attention of the Ashenhurst amusement and theme park has a barter of care in seeing to it that its operations do not cause harm to the village residents, some of whom assume a sufficient relationship of law of proximity and neighborhood with the park. The main offenses for which the park could be held liable are the torts of negligence and nuisance as well as for intentional and statutory torts. The traffic and noise from the rides are forms of nuisance, whereas the water seepage from the water ride and the overflow of garbage from the park amount to acts of negligence. As for intentional tort, the law says the theme park management is liable for this offense if it acted the way it did although it could have reasonably foreseen the harm that it would cause (Barker & Padfield). Based on the Occupiers Liability Act in UK, the park is also answerable for statutory tort if it never attempted to ta ke health and safety measures to avoid causing harm to its neighbors. However, it has to be proven if the park management breached its duty of care as determined by the accepted tests and principles of tort.