Injuries and losses during the 2012 Olympics Essay

Injuries and losses during the 2012 Olympics - Essay Example This essay discusses that since the Olympic site has been opened to visitors and athletes for ticket sales and athletes’ training, the persons at the site are presumed to be lawful visitors to the site. As a result the rights of the various athletes and visitors at the site, and the duty toward the safety of those lawfully at the site are covered by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. By virtue of Section 2(1) of the 1957 Act, occupiers owe a â€Å"common duty of care to all his visitors† unless that duty is restricted or waived â€Å"by agreement or otherwise†. To this end it is first necessary to identify who is the occupier or occupiers of the Olympic site and thus who would be the possible defendants in a claim by the possible plaintiffs. An occupier is any person or official body or agent with control of the premises in question. It was also held in Wheat v E Lacon & Co. Ltd that it is possible for there to be more than a single occupier of a given pro perty. Thus an employee in sufficient control of the premises can be an occupier together with an employer and an owner. Moreover, the owner need not be present to incur liability for damages to a lawful visitor. Based on the definition of occupier, it would appear that liability is shared jointly and severally between the various ticket vendors, the employees operating the various facilities and the owners of the Olympic site. The extent of the duty of care is described by Section 2(2) of the 1957 Act. The duty is a duty to take reasonable precautions to render the premises â€Å"reasonably safe† for visitors who are lawfully on the premises.7 The duty is generally discharged by posting conspicuous warnings of any pending or possible dangers to the safety of visitors lawfully on the premises.8 A mere warning that an event on the premises is dangerous would be sufficient to discharge the statutory duty of care.9 However, there appears to be no warning signs posted and as a re sult, Peter’s injury is indefensible on the grounds that the various occupiers did not take precautions to warn the possible plaintiffs of the dangers associated with the use of the Olympic site. Some precautions were taken with respect to barricading the ticket queues, but those barricades ultimately collapsed so that the question is whether or not those precautions were sufficient to safeguard against the incident of collapse and the resulting injuries suffered by various visitors queuing up to purchase tickets. Therefore while barricading the ticket queues may have been a sufficient precaution or warning of the dangers of the crowds, the main question is whether or not the warning or precaution was sufficient to discharge the statutory duty of care.10 It would appear that the precautionary measures taken by the police were insufficient to safeguard against the risk of harm attending the large crowds queuing up for the purchase of tickets. Remoteness of Damages Causation wo uld be established by virtue of the fact that the occupiers of the Olympic site had a statutory duty to ensure that the safety of the visitors were provided for or that sufficient warning was provided to permit the visitors to remain safe. As established above, failure to discharge the statutory duty will amount to actionable negligence. However, if the defendants can demonstrate that damages sustained were not a