Tort Law (Australia)
It is the fundamental duty of any hotel to provide its guests with a safe environment to avoid instances of injuries (Steele, 2017). As a business premise, any hotel that does not ensure its premises are secure for guests can be considered to be neglecting safety standards and relevant policies set by the country’s governing authority on the same matter. The law of negligence and limitation of liability Act 2008 (NI) in Australia requires that any business thoroughly inspect its grounds and see to it that the business’s premises are in a considerably safe condition (Steele, 2017). This was not the case with the hotel premises of the Shangri-La Hotel in Sydney. In this case, the plaintiff slipped on grapes that had been carelessly left on the hotel’s floor by the hotel’s workers and broke his ankle. The events leading to the plaintiff’s injuries at the defendant’s premises indicate that the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff should be compensated for the amount sued for owing to the fact that the Shangri-La Hotel breached the duty of care to the plaintiff as required by Australia’s law of negligence and limitation of liability Act 2008 (NI). The fact that the hotel’s staff members failed to clear the grapes lying on the hotel’s floor is against the tort of negligence in Australia (Steele, 2017). As the plaintiff, Bill has all the legal grounds to seek compensation from the defendant in relation to the tort law in Australia. Like any other hotel in the country, the Shangri-La Hotel owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The defendant breached this duty by not ensuring the plaintiff’s safety, a factor that caused harm to the plaintiff by affecting his wealth and income for two months. Even though the incident happened in a different city from that of the plaintiff’s workplace, the plaintiff is eligible for compensation.
On the other hand, despite the fact that the Shangri-La Hotel had a duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff also had a task of ensuring personal responsibility while in the defendant’s premises (Steele, 2017). The defendant’s incidence report indicates that the plaintiff had consumed several glasses of wine before the incident occurred. Intoxication from the wine consumed by the plaintiff could have been the primary reason as to why they suffered injuries at the defendant’s hotel premises. The law defines negligence as the intentional failure of assuming care to avoid bringing about damage or loss of any kind to another person. The fact that the plaintiff had been intoxicated to the level that they could not see the grapes lying around the hotel’s floor proves that the plaintiff failed to exercise their due diligence in ensuring that such an incident could not have occurred. The fact that the Shangri-La Hotel had a banquet manager responsible for overseeing all activities related to serving the banquet to the hotel’s customers indicates that the defendant had put all the necessary measures to steer clear of negligence as dictated by the Australian Tort law.
The defendant is justified to conclude that the plaintiff deserves no compensation as dictated by the doctrine of contributory negligence. The principle of contributory negligence in Australia requires that any injured party not be compensated for any damages or harm to them if such injury and damage was in part due to their negligence (Steele, 2017). As such, any suspension or break from work taken by the plaintiff as a result of his injuries is not related to negligence by the defendant but by the plaintiff himself. As such, the financial losses incurred are not a responsibility of the Shangri-La Hotel.
References
Steele, J. (2017). Tort law. Law Trove. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198768807.001.0001