Homeowners file a tort claim against a theme park Case Study

Homeowners file a tort claim against a theme park - Case fetch a line Exampleto 7 p.m. in that location was nary a moment of peace for the village residents since then be evidence of roadstead clogged with traffic. On opening day of the amusement park 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 prevent Ms. Bourne, who works darkness shifts at hospital, from sleeping at home by day. Mr. Goode, who runs a wildlife sanctuary nearby, also says the noise causes tribulation to his animals. Carelessness in garbage disposal. The daily garbage from the theme park is collected in artificial waste bays placed alongside the road, which o ften contain more than 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 pee from a multi-level log-flume wet 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 piping owned by the local water company.Principles of Tort The tort law of nature is characterized by a loosen up set of relatively abstract principles, which allow maximum discretion to be exercised by reference to common-sense value (Hocking & Smith, 1996).4 Thus, the judgment on whether the Ashenhurst Village residents...In criminal law, the state is portrayed as the bigger offended caller than the plaintiff such that if a defendant is proven guilty the state metes out the appropriate punishment. It is various in tort cases, in which the plaintiff, whose more popular assignation now is claimant, is the victim of the alleged wrong. There seems no doubt that the management of the Ashenhurst amusement and theme park has a duty of care in seeing to it that its operations do not cause abuse to the village residents, some of whom assume a sufficient relationship of proximity and neighborhood with the park. The main offenses for which the park could be held liable are the torts of disregard 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 soluble for statutory tort if it never attempted to take 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 legitimate tests and principles of tort.