Case law既問題

First, Mr. Tam may sue the Park (s.3 of Occupiers liability Ord);
Secondly, the Park may deny liability as they have contracted out the cleaning service to other party (see s.4 of OOccupiers liability Ord).

2014-05-29 14:08:08 補充：
You can simply make reference to any recent judgments (from judiciary website) concerning similar personal injury cases, I am not prepared to list out the issues involved.

2014-05-29 14:09:49 補充：
First, Mr. Tam may sue the Park (Occupier Liability Ordinance)

Secondly, the Park may dey liability as they have onctracted out the cleaning service to other party (s.4 OLO)
.
You can simply make reference to any recent judgments (from judiciary website) concerning similar personal injury cases, I am not prepared to list out the issues involved.

2014-05-29 14:14:38 補充：
In reality, victims like this always sue both the occupuier and the independent contractor...........once the parties can not reach settlement on liability issues, they will let the court to decide thereon.

2014-05-29 14:16:53 補充：
Also, you also need to mention that Mr. Tam is barred to commence legal action to recover damages within 3 years of the accident.

2014-05-29 14:41:15 補充：
assignment for diploma ?

你真係讀 LLB 架？

I have removed my answer.

I am surprised people like to rush doing others' homework - voiding the point of learning.

2014-06-01 05:55:00 補充：
七瀨 遙 -

These questions are too simple for LLB. They are mostly business law questions.

According to your description of the accident which caused damage to the victim, Mr. Tam on 25th September,2014. And you wanted to know what would be the legal point of view about this case.
Ans. Though I'm neither a lawyer nor a clerk of the law office and yet I thought that'll be the responsibility of the management office of the Rabbit Park, for they should be looking after the conditions of the toilet especially when it is raining and to put up a warning notice to ensure people's safety at least.

2014-05-27 06:11:20 補充：
Addition: In legal case, if Mr. Tam brings an accusation of damage or harm against the management office and he should use the date of the accident correctly otherwise it is not accepted by the court. In this case, the date on question is not appropriate as on 25th of September, 2014.