Legal Rights and Responsibilities summary report

Legal Rights and Responsibilities
Introduction
The basis of liability of the school which employed Julie is rooted in principles laid down in tort law and statutory law. Gleaning from the circumstances, it is apparent that the defendant school/employer was negligent in performing certain duties and obligations to Julie as an employee that could have prevented the occurrence of the accident.
One said principle is the principle of Breach of Duty, where when there is a duty of care, there must be a showing that the defendant school/employer failed to do what a reasonable employer would have done to avoid the situation. Since there is no hard and fast rule to determine negligence, but rather, must be gleaned from the specific circumstances in the case, case law has established several factors in determining negligence.
Body
As decided in Roe vs. Minister of Health (2 AER 131, 1954), knowledge of the defendant of a certain fact which could have led him or her to have foreseen the damage or loss, posits liability. In the present case, the school/employer, in hiring Julie, should have been aware of her disabilities. Consequently, it should not have given her certain duties which they knew would be difficult for Julie on account of her disability.
Secondly, there was a degree of risk undertaken by the school/employer. They designated an employee, who they knew fully well was burdened with certain disabilities. Even though Julie may have assumed the said functions and responsibilities, the school/employer still had the discretion and power to assign her said responsibilities. In Miller vs. Jackson ([1977] QB 966, [1977] 3 WLR 20, [1977] 3 All ER 338, a tendency of an accident occurring was prevalent. Hence, applying it to the present case, precautions were expected from the defendant.
Thirdly, another factor in determining liability is the promulgation of precautions to avert the occurrence of the accident. As decided in the cases of Wilson v Governor of Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School (1997) EWCA Civ 2644 and Haley v London Electricity Board [1964] 3 All ER 185, reasonable precautions must be undertaken by the employer to ensure that the accident would not have occurred.
Assessment
In the present case, there was no showing that the school/employer took any precaution to protect Julie. In the first place, they hired Julie who had certain disabilities to perform certain duties which were obviously difficult for her to perform. Second, they did not provide any support personnel, nor conduct any inspection that could have assisted Julie in performing her duties. The defendant avers that it was the duty of Julie to wait on the said assistance and inspection. However, Julie was merely performing the job assign...