Negotiation / Mediation
1. Meeting notes – whats being offered, whats been agreed etc – print
off ready for negotiation.
2. Write to client – what happened
3. Stage 4 file note
Opening speech responding to claimant – we have to first
respond to the claimants opening speech, then it proceeds
onto duty, breach, causation and damages. – why we feel the
university is not at fault, mini-introduction.
We are here today with a shared aim to discuss the incident
between the University of Cwmfelin and Mr Steven Jones.
Conflicts have arisen between the two due to the incident of Mr
Jones on the stairs. In the spirit of mediation, it is our aim to try
and save the University as much as possible as we are acting on
behalf of the university and believe that they did owe a duty
under both occupiers and employers liability act, however in the
best interest of our client, we believe they did not breach that
duty or cause it, furthermore we also have defences which we
wish to raise however the main aim of this mediation is to please
both parties and come to an understanding.
Admit duty – this is practically inevitable under
Occupiers/Employers Liability Act.
Argue on breach – this could be argued as he himself carried
the heaps of cardboard recognising the risk. The university
took reasonable measures to fix the step however they left
the step for around 10-12 months which could affect breach
and other side may use.
Causation – could also argue this as it is hard to link the
university to the cause of Mr Jones’s fall.
Defences which we may wish to raise – contributory
negligence – voluntarily assuming the risk.
Defence Speech
We have two defences which we wish to raise, the 1st is that Mr
Jones voluntarily assumed the risk and the 2nd that both parties
contributed to the negligence. Beginning with voluntarily
assuming the risk, as we are acting on behalf of the defendants it
is blatant, we would try to get them to reduce liability as much as
possible and voluntarily assuming the risk defeats the claim and
wills it so no damages will be paid whatsoever.
Voluntarily Assuming the Risk
, 1 – knew the nature and extent of the risk of harm and 2 –
voluntarily agreed to it.
(1) There are multiple factors which show Mr Jones was
aware of the extent of the risk of harm, such as where he
states in the witness statement “I was carrying folded up
large cardboard containers” – he knew he was carrying an
excess amount which he could not handle, and he knew they
were large which makes it worse, he also was aware he have
gradually taken small parts of cardboard down the stairs,
however he chose not to, and understood this was a risk
showing he meets the 1st criteria. The witness statement
additionally confirms this where she states, “he was
carrying loads of folded up pieces of cardboard in both
arms”.
Mr Jones also states “it was very dark that day and raining” he
himself knew there was a risk that the steps naturally were wet
which could have made him fall in addition to him carrying excess
amounts of large cardboard, further showing him realising the
extent of harm.
(2) show Mr Jones voluntarily agreed to it
Mr Jones voluntarily agreed to it once he was instructed by his
line manager Mr Vicks, Mr Jones was aware of the risks associated
with the instructions, not to mention the job role which is an
estates operative who would maintain that the grounds of the
University are of high-quality, this would include cleaning, litter
picking, bin storage etc, the main point being that Mr Jones was
not new to the job and was aware of his agreement and risk to
the role.
In addition, the case of Dann v Hamilton 1939 shows that simply
knowing the risk is not enough, the claimant must accept it, and
this is shown as Mr Jones further accepted the risk once he
reached the top of the stairs, realised they were steep, realised
he was carrying too much large cardboard to handle and
furthermore did not attempt to hold the rail until it was too late,
he understood those risks and accepted it once he proceeded
down the stairs, showing Mr Jones willingly engaged in conduct
which led to that result/injury.
(2) Furthermore, the case of Morris v Murray 1991 shows that the
situation must be compared to the meddling with a bomb, in
addition to how participation in a dangerous activity whilst being
aware of the risk can relieve the defendant of liability. It can be
argued that the factors of rain, darkness, carrying excess amount
of large cardboard down a steep set of stairs can be compared to
1. Meeting notes – whats being offered, whats been agreed etc – print
off ready for negotiation.
2. Write to client – what happened
3. Stage 4 file note
Opening speech responding to claimant – we have to first
respond to the claimants opening speech, then it proceeds
onto duty, breach, causation and damages. – why we feel the
university is not at fault, mini-introduction.
We are here today with a shared aim to discuss the incident
between the University of Cwmfelin and Mr Steven Jones.
Conflicts have arisen between the two due to the incident of Mr
Jones on the stairs. In the spirit of mediation, it is our aim to try
and save the University as much as possible as we are acting on
behalf of the university and believe that they did owe a duty
under both occupiers and employers liability act, however in the
best interest of our client, we believe they did not breach that
duty or cause it, furthermore we also have defences which we
wish to raise however the main aim of this mediation is to please
both parties and come to an understanding.
Admit duty – this is practically inevitable under
Occupiers/Employers Liability Act.
Argue on breach – this could be argued as he himself carried
the heaps of cardboard recognising the risk. The university
took reasonable measures to fix the step however they left
the step for around 10-12 months which could affect breach
and other side may use.
Causation – could also argue this as it is hard to link the
university to the cause of Mr Jones’s fall.
Defences which we may wish to raise – contributory
negligence – voluntarily assuming the risk.
Defence Speech
We have two defences which we wish to raise, the 1st is that Mr
Jones voluntarily assumed the risk and the 2nd that both parties
contributed to the negligence. Beginning with voluntarily
assuming the risk, as we are acting on behalf of the defendants it
is blatant, we would try to get them to reduce liability as much as
possible and voluntarily assuming the risk defeats the claim and
wills it so no damages will be paid whatsoever.
Voluntarily Assuming the Risk
, 1 – knew the nature and extent of the risk of harm and 2 –
voluntarily agreed to it.
(1) There are multiple factors which show Mr Jones was
aware of the extent of the risk of harm, such as where he
states in the witness statement “I was carrying folded up
large cardboard containers” – he knew he was carrying an
excess amount which he could not handle, and he knew they
were large which makes it worse, he also was aware he have
gradually taken small parts of cardboard down the stairs,
however he chose not to, and understood this was a risk
showing he meets the 1st criteria. The witness statement
additionally confirms this where she states, “he was
carrying loads of folded up pieces of cardboard in both
arms”.
Mr Jones also states “it was very dark that day and raining” he
himself knew there was a risk that the steps naturally were wet
which could have made him fall in addition to him carrying excess
amounts of large cardboard, further showing him realising the
extent of harm.
(2) show Mr Jones voluntarily agreed to it
Mr Jones voluntarily agreed to it once he was instructed by his
line manager Mr Vicks, Mr Jones was aware of the risks associated
with the instructions, not to mention the job role which is an
estates operative who would maintain that the grounds of the
University are of high-quality, this would include cleaning, litter
picking, bin storage etc, the main point being that Mr Jones was
not new to the job and was aware of his agreement and risk to
the role.
In addition, the case of Dann v Hamilton 1939 shows that simply
knowing the risk is not enough, the claimant must accept it, and
this is shown as Mr Jones further accepted the risk once he
reached the top of the stairs, realised they were steep, realised
he was carrying too much large cardboard to handle and
furthermore did not attempt to hold the rail until it was too late,
he understood those risks and accepted it once he proceeded
down the stairs, showing Mr Jones willingly engaged in conduct
which led to that result/injury.
(2) Furthermore, the case of Morris v Murray 1991 shows that the
situation must be compared to the meddling with a bomb, in
addition to how participation in a dangerous activity whilst being
aware of the risk can relieve the defendant of liability. It can be
argued that the factors of rain, darkness, carrying excess amount
of large cardboard down a steep set of stairs can be compared to
