Crown procecuting.(Genius program Question from oxford university)

Ok who can solve this scenario you are representing the crown court and are procecuting a company under gross negligence. The facts of the case is Mrs Johnson was walking down the stairs of the Hotel when she triped on a piece of torn stair carpet and fell heavily breaking her arm. Now the crown is going after the hotel under the criminal act saying it was gross negligance. Now which laws have the hotels broken state two laws which you can procecute them under.

This was in a genius testin program the kid who solved it Brad Tate did it in under 5 minutes who can do better i have already solved it in under 10, not bad hey.

'Prosecuting', and 'negligence'.

Good job it wasn't a genius spelling test.

Also, sense has been lost at some point.

This is one you either know or you don't. Not many have expert knowledge in this particular section of the law. Are you sure this falls under criminal law? There's manslaughter by gross negligence but she's not dead and her injuries amount to GBH in UK law. There's no criminal offence of causing GBH by gross negligence. I bet this is going to be some kind of ancient, hardly ever used piece or legislation. By the way all the above means that I have no idea.

Safety inspection (upkeep of the carpet should have been ensured)
Building code violation (should have been a hand rail so she scould stop her fall)

Originally posted by snoochyboochies
This is one you either know or you don't. Not many have expert knowledge in this particular section of the law. Are you sure this falls under criminal law? There's manslaughter by gross negligence but she's not dead and her injuries amount to GBH in UK law. There's no criminal offence of causing GBH by gross negligence. I bet this is going to be some kind of ancient, hardly ever used piece or legislation. By the way all the above means that I have no idea.

Actually it falls under gross Negligence as the guy below me stated steps should have been carried out to ensure an accident like this never happens. On the laws of suing now thats were it gets hard

It's straightforward under normal tort law.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's straightforward under normal tort law.

Could you say that in American?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Could you say that in American?

😆 x2

health and safety at work act: safe standard of equipment regulations

probably falls under corporate liability or vicarious liability laws as well

Originally posted by sexyking
Ok who can solve this scenario you are representing the crown court and are procecuting a company under gross negligence. The facts of the case is Mrs Johnson was walking down the stairs of the Hotel when she triped on a piece of torn stair carpet and fell heavily breaking her arm. Now the crown is going after the hotel under the criminal act saying it was gross negligance. Now which laws have the hotels broken state two laws which you can procecute them under.

This was in a genius testin program the kid who solved it Brad Tate did it in under 5 minutes who can do better i have already solved it in under 10, not bad hey.

I'm not overly familiar with British case history, nor your criminal code. In Canada, the hotel would not be charged criminally at all. The women could sue, but she would probably only get at the very most 50% of her settlement as she should've been watching where she was going.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I'm not overly familiar with British case history, nor your criminal code. In Canada, the hotel would not be charged criminally at all. The women could sue, but she would probably only get at the very most 50% of her settlement as she should've been watching where she was going.

Thats just wrong due to the fact on entering the hotel and the hotel accepting the woman their is now a contract formed between the woman and the hotel. And as it seems the hotel did not provide warning that the carpet was damaged so the woman was under the assumption that all was well, heck a good prosecutor could probably nail them under the trade description act.

We have limits on these things that prevent people from getting stupidly high settlements.

Originally posted by Supreme being
Thats just wrong due to the fact on entering the hotel and the hotel accepting the woman their is now a contract formed between the woman and the hotel. And as it seems the hotel did not provide warning that the carpet was damaged so the woman was under the assumption that all was well, heck a good prosecutor could probably nail them under the trade description act.

As I said, I am not familiar with UK law. But in Canada they could not be charged criminally. And we have changed our civil system so that both the hotel and the woman are apportioned blame.

Originally posted by sexyking
fell heavily breaking her arm.

How does one fall heavily? For that matter, how could one heavily break their arm?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Could you say that in American?

Originally posted by Supreme being
😆 x2

Civil law.

Of a sort.

Originally posted by Devil King
How does one fall heavily? For that matter, how could one heavily break their arm?

😕

Heavily can mean to "as if carrying a great weight". In this case refering to falling with great force.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
😕

Heavily can mean to "as if carrying a great weight". In this case refering to falling with great force.

Yeah, I know what the term havily means. I've just never heard it used in such a manner. What, did she have a refrigerator strapped to her back?

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, I know what the term havily means. I've just never heard it used in such a manner. What, did she have a refrigerator strapped to her back?

Do you really have to critique the guy's writing style? "Fell heavily" is a perfectly acceptable use of words.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really have to critique the guy's writing style? "Fell heavily" is a perfectly acceptable use of words.

Do I have to? No. But I did, and I would again.

Originally posted by Devil King
Do I have to? No. But I did, and I would again.

. . . 😕 . . . you monster?!?!