Assignment 2018 Sem 1 Author: | Cheap Nursing Papers

Assignment 2018 Sem 1 Author:

Assignment 2018 Sem 1

Author: D. Carbone


Assignment Question

You are required to advise each of



for the legal




arisen from the

“Background facts” below, and briefly outline how a judge would decide the issues in dispute.

The two legal





Adelaide Show Ltd v All Business Insurance Pty Ltd



Peter v Amusement Rides Pty Ltd.




The Royal Adelaide Show is an annual event in South Australia that attracts thousands of

visitors over nine days in September. The Show is one

of the biggest in Australia and

features exhibitions and displays, including farm equipment and animals, fashion and

competitions. Its major attractions include a variety of carnival and amusement rides. The

Show is organised and operated by Adelaide Sh

ow Ltd on premises owned by it.

One of the Show’s oldest rides is the

Mad Mouse

. This is a roller coaster ride in which

separate open carriages holding two persons at a time ride at a rapid speed on a convoluted

track built high above the ground. The

track includes steep slopes and sharp turns that

provide thrills and enjoyment for the roller coaster’s riders. The roller coaster is owned and

operated by Amusement Rides Pty Ltd, which carries on the business of supplying and

operating amusement rides.

Unfortunately late on the third day of the Show, as one of the Mad Mouse’s carriages was

riding around the roller coaster’s tracks, it broke away from the ride. The carriage plunged

downwards landing on

the ground

next to the Mad Mouse ride. This accide

nt caused injuries

to two riders in the carriage at the time




his 8 year old daughter


He sustained

injuries to his body that will require medical treatment at a cost of $50,000.

Following the accident, the government agency SafeWork SA impound

ed the Mad Mouse

ride to undertake an investigation of the cause of the accident. This investigation reveals that

the ride did not have a current safety certificate that was mandatory under the law for the ride

to be operated. The investigation also reve

als that two of the four bolts that secured the front

wheel of the carriage had snapped in half and that the remaining two bolts she


red off, which

caused the carriage to break away from the ride.


Adelaide Show Ltd v All Business Insurance Pty Ltd


ortly after the accident, Adelaide Show Ltd (Adelaide Show) sent a letter to its insurance

company, All Business Insurance Pty Ltd (ABI), advising of the accident and the likelihood

of claims being made by those who were injured or suffered loss as a resul

t. Adelaide Show

said that it expected the claims to be based on its negligence in failing to ensure that the Mad

Mouse ride’s operator had a current safety certificate.

ABI replied by a letter in which it stated that such claims arising from the acciden

t would not

come within the scope of the insurance cover taken out by Adelaide Show. The insurance

cover provided was set out in a


written contract

signed by both parties

, the terms of

which had been drafted by ABI. The insurance contract included

clause 20 that



Assignment 2018 Sem 1

Author: D. Carbone



The insurance cover under this policy extends to any liability for personal

injury or property damage arising from the acts or omissions of


Show Ltd, its employees, servants and agents on Adelaide Show Ltd’s



from the acts or omissions of

persons invited by Adelaide Show

Ltd onto its premises.


However, the insurance cover does not extend to

liability for personal injury

or property damage arising from

the acts or omissions of a person on

Adelaide Show L

td’s premises for an unlawful purpose.”

ABI said in its letter that the


cover was excluded by clause 20(2) since the operator

of the Mad Mouse ride not having a current safety certificate meant that the operator was “


person on Adelaide Show Lt

d’s premises for an unlawful purpose

“, namely operating an

amusement ride without a current safety certificate that was mandatory and required under

the law.

Adelaide Show has now started legal action against ABI as a result of ABI’s refusal to


Adelaide Show for any claims resulting from the accident. Adelaide Show claims

that ABI has breached the express terms

of the


insurance contract.

Adelaide Show points out that the day before the insurance contract was signed by it,

Adelaide Show se

nt an email to ABI that stated:

“Can you please explain the effect of clause 20(2). We are concerned that the clause

will leave Adelaide Show Ltd exposed to a range of legal claims for which we would

need insurance cover, especially the risks to the publ

ic arising from our animal

display and competition events and from the other attractions on our premises during

our Show.”

Later the same day, ABI telephoned Adelaide Show and replied by saying:

“Clause 20(2) is a standard term in all our insurance polic

ies. It applies to ensure

that we have no liability to indemnify for losses and damage arising from the acts of

persons who are on your premises illegally, such as trespassers and burglars. The

clause should therefore have no application to the risks men

tioned in your email.”

The next day Adelaide Show signed the insurance contract and delivered it to ABI.

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon

Order Now

Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Chat with us on WhatsApp