Evaluating below scenario(s) should comply with the word count of

1000 with +/- 10% margin. You may use tables and diagrams to

support your report to illustrate the text. Word count excludes the

index, headings, information contained in tables, references and

bibliography.

One night, Mark decides to check in at the Poshplace Hotel, which is owned by Ben. Later

that night, Mark is in his room when a masked man enters and threatens to hurt him unless he

hands over his valuable antique jewellery. Mark hands it over. The thief later turns out to be

Neil, the hotel gardener, who had stolen a master key to the hotel room.

Meantime, downstairs in the kitchen, Roger, the dishwasher, is complaining about the skin

rash he has developed as a result of long periods of washing up. Although rubber gloves are

available, most employees do not use them. Colin, the head chef, is getting fed up with Roger

and in his anger, knocks Roger unconscious with a frying pan.

Meanwhile, to cheer himself up, Mark later decides to go to the Hotel pool for a swim. A sign

on the pool door reads: ‘Pool closed between 7.00pm and 7.00 am. No entry to visitors during

these hours; ‘Dangerous when unattended’. Mark reads but ignores the sign and enters. He

cannot find the light so just jumps in. In fact, the pool has been emptied and Mark is badly

injured and tears his expensive designer swimming trunks.

Assessment Type: Individual

BTEC Higher National Diploma in Business

Unit 5: Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Business Regent College

7

Task: Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, D, E, F and G

individually as they apply to the facts in the above scenario. Apply the elements of the tort of

negligence and defences and Apply the elements of vicarious liability in this situations. (LO

4.1, 4.2)

Statement A: Neil does not owe Roger a non-delegable duty of care as an employer to

provide a safe working environment.

Statement B: Roger can bring a claim in vicarious liability against Neil for Colin’s actions.

Statement C: The Poshplace Hotel is liable to Mark under the Occupiers’ Liability Act

1957.

Statement D: The Poshplace Hotel is not liable to Mark under the Occupiers’ Liability Act

1984 because of its warning notice.

Statement E: Mark can use ordinary negligence principles in his claim against Poshplace.

Statement F: Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, Mark will not be able to claim for the cost

of his designer swimming trunks.

Statement G: Mark can bring a claim in vicarious liability against Poshplace Hotel for the

loss of his jewellery.