RSK80004: Introduction to Risk and Due Diligence - Evergreen Civil Pty Ltd - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Common-Law Case Study
Consider one of the two following cases, preferably the one closest to your industry or major interest. Apply the four common-law criteria (Questions) and provide an
assessment of whether you believe the defendant would be found guilty of negligence. Please explain your reasoning under each criterion. Each of these cases is complex, so try to present arguments for and against under each of the criteria. If there are different possible defendants to the selected action, consider them all and discuss why you believe a particular party may be enjoined to the action ahead of others. The Australian adversarial judicial and common law system should be used, not the inquisitorial European type system. The assignment should be a maximum of 2000 words. Assessment will be based on the logic of your argument, not the number of words. You may or may not come to the same conclusion as the court/s as the limited information below will require you to make assumptions about the circumstances of the event. However, any such assumptions should be clearly stated/presented.
 

CASE 1.
Give an opinion as to whether or not the employer in the following example would be considered negligent in providing a “safe place and/or system of work”.
This is a real case DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v Evergreen Civil Pty Ltd

Jurisdiction: IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF VICTORIA AT RINGWOOD
CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION

Outcome:
Evergreen Civil Pty Ltd (the offender) is a construction company specializing in public landscapes, streetscapes, drainage, and civil infrastructure. They were undertaking works at Tunstall Square Shopping Centre, Beverley Street, Doncaster East (the workplace).

On 1 June 2017 at 10:15 pm, a pedestrian received serious injuries after falling over 1 meter to the bottom of an open stormwater excavation next to a footpath. The fencing around the perimeter of the open excavation included star pickets and orange para-webbing. Members of Victoria Police witnessed the incident and assisted the injured person at the scene.WorkSafe were notified by Victoria Police on 2 June 2017, and on 5 June 2017, the WorkSafe Inspector attended the workplace. He observed safety measures to the site had been undertaken, including crowd control barriers Dyna-bolted to the footpath. No notices were issued. The offender had a Safe Work Method Statement providing that work areas were to be isolated by the use of signage, bollards, bunting and fencing. The para-webbing had been installed by the site foreman and checked on a daily basis by the site supervisor. The offender pleaded guilty to a single charge under s. 23(1) on the basis that there was a risk of serious injury or death, and it was reasonably practicable to secure the site to ensure public safety, by installing and securing temporary perimeter fencing or isolating persons from the hazard or a combination of both.

CASE 2.
Give an opinion as to whether or not the defendants in the following example would be considered negligent in their duty of care to road users and neighbours.
This is a real case DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v AM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD & ALDO DITONTO:
AM Design & Construction Pty Ltd (‘the offender’) completed structural drawings for the basement excavation works for a mixed commercial and residential development to be constructed at 170-174 Highbury Road, Mount Waverley (‘the workplace’). Aldo Di Tonto was the structural engineer for the development and was the secretary, sole director and sole owner of the offender. The structural drawings for the workplace did not require the concurrent installation of a site retention system. There was a risk to persons working inside, or working, residing or travelling in the vicinity of the excavation pit that, if the walls of the excavation collapsed, they could be seriously injured or killed by being engulfed in the collapse, or falling into the excavation pit. Sometime during the night of 13-14 July 2015 part of the excavation collapsed in the south-east corner of the workplace. On the night of 15 July 2015 a further, and much larger, collapse occurred. The police advised the residents of the front townhouse to immediately evacuate.

This RSK80004: Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.