Q1) Tort law, unintentional torts - “Negligence" Negligence results in harm to another person which should have been avoided by taking precautions. The organisers should have taken the precautions to stop Mike crowd surfing at the concert. It relates to the learning of the week’s 5-7 lecture material and the study which goes along with the subject of tort law. Occupier’s liability is of high importance to answering this question.
Q2) Mike must prove all three elements of the tort of negligence to sue the organisers; did the organisers owe him a duty of care? Did the organisers breach that duty of care? Also did this breach cause damage (causation) to Mike? Mike will have to prove that the organisers owed him a duty of care because when he decided to go to this concert the organisers didn’t have any disclaimers on the possibility of injury and as so Mike expects to have an experience without knowing of any foreseeable dangers that may occur. Therefore Mike can establish that the organisers as the invitee owe him a duty of care. Mike will have to prove if the organisers breached this duty of care and Mike can argue that they knowingly allowed the practice of crowd surfing to occur even though it is a highly dangerous action. Mike will have to affirm that the breach of duty of care caused him damage, which he will need to have the doctor’s certificates or testimonies, x-rays and medical reports to determine the severity of his injuries as well as the actuality. He may also have causation if he cannot work due to his injuries causing economic harm which Mike may be able to prove. Mike must also prove that he partook in the crowd surfing after he saw other do it safety and that they weren’t stopped for doing so, the organisers allowed for the practice to continue even though they knew it was a dangerous activity they also allowed it even though they had signs warning against so they aren’t reinforcing the signs message with action, they might as well not be there. Mike also will have to prove that the organisers didn’t provide him with suitable warnings on the dangers of crowd surfing as signs saying no crowd surfing doesn’t warn of the dangers that can occur when crowd surfing. Mike will also have to prove that the chain of causation stops with the organisers, maybe the crowd which dropped him are the cause or it could be the band playing as they hired the organisers. Mike will also have to prove when the event took place and that he was at this event as a claim for negligence must be made within 12 months of the causation. He will have to prove that the organisers owed him an occupier’s liability also.
Q3) Mike can argue that the organisers saw that injuries were a reasonably foreseeable risk by putting up signs they knew that injuries were a possibility as there were other reported cases of injuries from crowd surfing prior to Mike’s incident. The practice of crowd surfing was allowed by the organisers and the security guards even aided the crowd surfers, Mike can argue that the risk of harm was significant and in these circumstances a reasonable person would have not allowed or banned crowd surfing after the first instance, the organisers didn’t and haven’t taken the appropriate precautions against risk of harm. The chain of causation stops with the organisers as they are the party which is responsible for the operation of the event and the preparation of the concerts crowd and the construction of the facilities in some cases.
Q4) They can state that they didn’t owe mike a
