Question 2 : Read the case reading-see decision and reasoning in…
Question Question 2 : Read the case reading-see decision and reasoning in… Question 2 : Read the case reading-see decision and reasoning in Rushbond Plc v The JS Design Partnership LLP [2021] EWCA Civ 1889. and answer the following question.Scenerio:Mr. Kim owned an automotive garage located in an industrial area. His garage specialised in vintage restorations. In April 2021, Mr. Kim realised that his garage’s annual cyclone insurance was due shortly. Before the insurance could be renewed, the insurance company required an engineers’ inspection of the garage. Mr. Kim usually relied on the property manager, Mr. Ram, to facilitate the required inspections. Mr. Ram kept Engineers PTY (a local engineering firm) on a yearly retainer to complete inspections and prepare reports for insurance purposes. However, on the inspection date, Mr. Ram’s daughter fell ill and needed to be taken to the hospital. Mr. Ram instructed the engineers from Engineers PTY to pick up the keys from his home, inspect the garage and then return the keys to his office once they finished. Mr. Ram gave the engineers the alarm code for the garage. The engineers did as they were instructed: around 5:00 PM that day, they collected the keys, made the inspection and returned the keys to Mr. Ram’s property management office. Later that evening, Mr. Kim received a call from the police who advised him that his garage was on fire. Distraut, Mr. Kim arrived at the scene to see his life’s work in flames. All of the vintage cars in the garage were destroyed. This amounted to an estimated loss of about $3,000,000 USD. Investigations concluded a week after the fire. The fire investigators found that the garage fire was due to arson. The arsonists had used an accelerant to engulf the garage in flames. The CCTV footage from an adjacent property revealed that the arsonists had entered the property while the engineers were conducting the inspection of the internal rood purlins. The engineers had left the door unlocked while they were conducting the inspection; this was the door that the arsonists used to enter the property. It was unclear how the arsonists evaded the alarm sensors after the engineers had left. Mr. Kim has approached you for advice on possible actions that can be taken against Engineers PTY. The claimant (Mr. Kim) should file for damages against Engineers PTY for negligence of duty of care doctrine. (My answer/incomplete) Law Social Science Criminal Justice LAW LW203 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)
