M3 –
In this task, I am going to assess how the law of vicarious liability is likely to affect the business that is
involved in the Sir Fred Goodman scenario. As well as this, I will assess the incidents that took place
in the scenario in which I will then explain how the law of vicarious liability will affect Sir Fred
Goodman’s business. Sir Fred Goodman owns a large private estate on Canvey Island in Essex in
which he runs a fishing club and his clients need a license to take part in the fishing club. A couple,
Mr and Mrs Dawood are members of the fishing club who were spending a fortnight at the club in
which some incidents took place in the scenario.
The first incident involved Mrs Dawood. Mrs Dawood was walking across a wooden foot bridge with
Mr Dawood in which Mrs Dawood caught her foot on a loose plank which caused her to suffer a
severe sprain. Although, the bridge had only been recently refurbished by a professional bridge
construction company named Aqua Engineering. Mrs Dawood had to be airlifted to the nearby
hospital so Mrs Dawood can have a treatment for her sprain. However, Mrs Dawood is considering
suing Sir Fred’s Angling Club under vicarious liability and/or occupier’s liability for faulty
workmanship for the injury caused to Mrs Dawood. Applying to the law of occupier’s liability, this
incident applies to the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 because Sir Fred Goodman should hence a duty
of care to his visitors and ensure that all his visitors are safe. A previous case that could support the
incident is the Wheat v Lacon [1996] case, which was about Mr and Mrs Richardson, who were
managers of a brewery house and lived in the property and Wheat, who was one of their customers
tripped down some stairs in the premises and died due to no railing guards on the stairs. This
supports the incident because there was no health and safety or a duty of care provided to visitors,
therefore there should’ve been a warning sign to alert visitors that the bridge is being currently
refurbished and that some of the planks are loose. Onto Vicarious Liability, Sir Fred Goodman isn’t
held vicariously liable because the company who were refurbishing the bridge were not his
employees so he is not responsible for their actions to not be finished refurbishing the bridge.
Therefore, Mrs Dawood can only sue Sir Fred Goodman for occupier’s liability.
Onto the second incident which is continued from the first incident, Mr Dawood called his son
Harvey to tell him about the incident. Harvey then rushed over to the Angling Club from London with
his 14 year old sister Amina to see their parents but they were then barred from entering the club as
they do not have a license. This caused Harvey to have an argument with one of the gatekeepers in
which the gatekeeper wrestled him to the ground, causing Harvey’s £7,500 watch to break. His sister
Amina then slipped through the gate and went towards her parent’s cottage by cutting through a
short-cut in which a sign that read ‘DANGER -SQUIRREL SNARES IN PLACE!!’ that she did not see and
she fell into one of them. Harvey is considering suing Sir Fred Goodman under vicarious liability and
for the damage to his watch, whilst Amina seeks legal redress under occupier’s liability for the injury
that she suffered from the squirrel snare. Applying Amina’s incident to occupier’s liability, she is a
trespasser of the area as she slipped through the gate even though she wasn’t allowed to enter the
premises, therefore there is no duty of care owed if someone is willing to take risks which applies to
the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984. Although, it can apply to the allurance of children because an adult
such as her parents should ensure that children are protected from dangers, in which there was a
sign clearly visible but she didn’t see it, meaning that Sir Fred Goodman can or even cannot be sued
under occupier’s liability. Onto Vicarious Liability, Sir Fred Goodman is not held vicariously liable for
the gatekeeper’s actions because violence or actions to a person not involved in the business or to
another employee doesn’t make the employer responsible. A previous case that supports this is the
Beard v London General Omnibus [1900] case, where a bus conductor drove a bus injuring a
pedestrian, therefore Harvey cannot sue Fred Goodman for vicarious Liability because the
In this task, I am going to assess how the law of vicarious liability is likely to affect the business that is
involved in the Sir Fred Goodman scenario. As well as this, I will assess the incidents that took place
in the scenario in which I will then explain how the law of vicarious liability will affect Sir Fred
Goodman’s business. Sir Fred Goodman owns a large private estate on Canvey Island in Essex in
which he runs a fishing club and his clients need a license to take part in the fishing club. A couple,
Mr and Mrs Dawood are members of the fishing club who were spending a fortnight at the club in
which some incidents took place in the scenario.
The first incident involved Mrs Dawood. Mrs Dawood was walking across a wooden foot bridge with
Mr Dawood in which Mrs Dawood caught her foot on a loose plank which caused her to suffer a
severe sprain. Although, the bridge had only been recently refurbished by a professional bridge
construction company named Aqua Engineering. Mrs Dawood had to be airlifted to the nearby
hospital so Mrs Dawood can have a treatment for her sprain. However, Mrs Dawood is considering
suing Sir Fred’s Angling Club under vicarious liability and/or occupier’s liability for faulty
workmanship for the injury caused to Mrs Dawood. Applying to the law of occupier’s liability, this
incident applies to the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 because Sir Fred Goodman should hence a duty
of care to his visitors and ensure that all his visitors are safe. A previous case that could support the
incident is the Wheat v Lacon [1996] case, which was about Mr and Mrs Richardson, who were
managers of a brewery house and lived in the property and Wheat, who was one of their customers
tripped down some stairs in the premises and died due to no railing guards on the stairs. This
supports the incident because there was no health and safety or a duty of care provided to visitors,
therefore there should’ve been a warning sign to alert visitors that the bridge is being currently
refurbished and that some of the planks are loose. Onto Vicarious Liability, Sir Fred Goodman isn’t
held vicariously liable because the company who were refurbishing the bridge were not his
employees so he is not responsible for their actions to not be finished refurbishing the bridge.
Therefore, Mrs Dawood can only sue Sir Fred Goodman for occupier’s liability.
Onto the second incident which is continued from the first incident, Mr Dawood called his son
Harvey to tell him about the incident. Harvey then rushed over to the Angling Club from London with
his 14 year old sister Amina to see their parents but they were then barred from entering the club as
they do not have a license. This caused Harvey to have an argument with one of the gatekeepers in
which the gatekeeper wrestled him to the ground, causing Harvey’s £7,500 watch to break. His sister
Amina then slipped through the gate and went towards her parent’s cottage by cutting through a
short-cut in which a sign that read ‘DANGER -SQUIRREL SNARES IN PLACE!!’ that she did not see and
she fell into one of them. Harvey is considering suing Sir Fred Goodman under vicarious liability and
for the damage to his watch, whilst Amina seeks legal redress under occupier’s liability for the injury
that she suffered from the squirrel snare. Applying Amina’s incident to occupier’s liability, she is a
trespasser of the area as she slipped through the gate even though she wasn’t allowed to enter the
premises, therefore there is no duty of care owed if someone is willing to take risks which applies to
the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984. Although, it can apply to the allurance of children because an adult
such as her parents should ensure that children are protected from dangers, in which there was a
sign clearly visible but she didn’t see it, meaning that Sir Fred Goodman can or even cannot be sued
under occupier’s liability. Onto Vicarious Liability, Sir Fred Goodman is not held vicariously liable for
the gatekeeper’s actions because violence or actions to a person not involved in the business or to
another employee doesn’t make the employer responsible. A previous case that supports this is the
Beard v London General Omnibus [1900] case, where a bus conductor drove a bus injuring a
pedestrian, therefore Harvey cannot sue Fred Goodman for vicarious Liability because the
