Occupiers Liability in the Commonwealth Caribbean

TOPIC 4: †¨OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY Occupier’s liability forms part of the liability arising from the occupation of premises. It is therefore related to nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, breach of statutory duty and basic negligence. Occupier’s liability covers liability for damage (usually personal injury) which occurs to entrants on to the premises of the defendant. In the Commonwealth Caribbean, Barbados and Jamaica have enacted statutes substantially similar to the English Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Barbados: Occupiers Liability Act, Cap. 208†¨Jamaica: Occupiers Liability Act 1969 (Vol. Xiii, Laws of Jamaica) All other jurisdictions apply the common law rules, but it has been said that the Occupiers Liability Acts could be regarded as†¦show more content†¦an unrailed plank on a ship might be an unusual danger for a passenger, but not for a seaman. Indermaur v Dames (1866)†¨Principle: ‘invitee’ was defined in this case as a person who enters premises ‘upon business which concerns the occupier, and upon his invitation, express or implied.’ Harripersad v Mini Max Ltd (1978) (TT)†¨The plaintiff was shopping in the defendants’ supermarket when she slipped and fell to the ground injuring her knee. It was proved that the plaintiff had fallen in a part of the store where water, dripping from an air conditioner, had collected on the floor. The defendants had placed sheets of newspaper on the floor to absorb the water but, after some time, the paper became saturated and the water continued to collect there. The floor itself was made of terrazzo tiles, which were known to have a very smooth surface, and the presence of the water made it ‘slippery and potentially dangerous to customers’.†¨Held: the plaintiff’s fall was caused by the wet floor, which was an unusual danger known to the defendants, who were therefore liable in negligence.†¨Ã¢â‚¬Å"The question of whether an existing state of affairs rendering premises dangerous is to be considered unusual or not depend upon the particular fa cts and circumstances of each case..the condition of the floor...amounted to...an unusual danger...The danger with which the plaintiff was there confronted that morning was not only unusual, it was...one of which the defendants were fully

Working Conditions for Children During Industrial Revolution Free Essays

Working Conditions of Children During the Industrial Revolution During the beginning of the industrial revolution there was a high demand for labour. Families travelled from rural farm areas to newly industrialized and larger cities in hope of finding new work. To survive even in the lowest class of poverty families would have had to have every single able family member working, this includes children. We will write a custom essay sample on Working Conditions for Children During Industrial Revolution or any similar topic only for you Order Now Children as young as six were put to work in factories. They worked for up too 19 hours a day with only one hours break in total. Work was hard and the children were often paid barely anything. These fragile human beings were; frequently overworked, underpaid and ill treated for a long time. They didn’t have small jobs either; their jobs were physically intense and required a lot of effort and strength. With little medical knowledge in comparison to today these children were prevented from growing healthily and naturally. Deformedness was common amongst many of the children due to the high amount of physical exertion performed by them. Their growth was slowed down and they suffered in multiple other ways. The treatment of children in factories was horrendous to say the least. They were verbally abused and little care was payed to their safety and wellbeing. Sever punishments were also in place for the slightest disobedience. It was incredibly unsafe to work in the factory environment due to the large machineries used, which very often proved a hazard to the children. With the enormous machines fingers and body parts of theses skinny children could often result in deaths due to serious injuries or accidents. Sometimes children fell asleep from working excessive hours and occasionally the sheer force of the machines would just crush them. In factories that were unsanitary there was harsh exposure to dangerous chemicals and toxins consistently. Some children died from excessive inhalation of the fumes. Children who worked in coalmines often died from explosions and injuries. Overall there was extreme difficulty faced with being a child and having to grow up working during the industrial revolution. How to cite Working Conditions for Children During Industrial Revolution, Papers

Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of representative vs direct democracy free essay sample

Essay Title – Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of representative vs direct democracy Democracy is a word known to most persons today, in the Western world atleast, and almost always has positive connotations associated with it. Indeed from far left to far right, democracy has been proclaimed and embraced by political parties, indeed for a party to profess democracy is seen as necessary to its claim of legitimacy. The word democracy derives from the Greek prefix Demos which could be seen as people, or in ancient Greece was associated with the poor and the suffix Kratos, which could be seen as power or rule'(Heywood, 2004; 221). The nuance in translation has particular significance, and is not due to ambiguity in translation. It is the purpose of this essay to first set out an account of what we mean by legitimacy, for our discussion of democracy as the most important form of legitimacy hinges upon such an account. We shall then take representative and direct democracy in turn, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. And conclude with this authors opinion on the equal credibility of both forms, depending on the context within which they are put to practical use. Foundational to the existence of any democratic government is the concept of legitimacy, that is; right over might; legitimacy over power, and out of which grows duty over obedience. In the words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau The strongest is never been strong enough unless he turns might into right and obedience into duty'(Palgrave.com, Chapter 4: Democracy and Legitimacy). Should a government fail to evolve so, its rule is no more than despotic subjugation, and its demise is most likely only a matter of time as the subjugated will inevitably revolt and take back power. Rousseau has been seen as a highly influential figure in, if not indeed the father of, modern liberal political thought, with the school having its foundations in enli ghtenment thinking(Garrard in Kurian et al, 2011: 508). This is an important starting point when considering the strengths and weaknesses of either form of democracy. The first form of democracy, that of direct or pure democracy, has its roots in the classical idea forged it ancient Athens. The men of Athens were expected to have continuous and direct participation in the decision making and running of their city, and any public offices held were allotted by way of rota or the casting of lots(Scrunton, 1982). Although in practice the electorate was discriminatory and therefore not truly representative of all citizens, those who did participate were not politicians. The vocations of participants would be quite diverse, and therefore we encounter the first important point relating to direct democracy, education. If the decisions of the community are dependent on every individuals understanding of the decision being made, then education is key. To take the modern day example of the upcoming referendum on Scottish independence, this can be seen as a form of direct participation, the decision being made is a profound one and a decision either way will have significant and long term implications for each Scottish citizen. Therefore in the interest of the greater good of the community, we have each of us a duty to educate ourselves on these implications. In this way we can see the idea of legitimacy being championed, after all as we all become less aware of our own opinions, usually ill informed, and educate ourselves on the matter, the social institution known as the state, within which Rousseau saw corruption lying, would begin to take on a literal life of its own and individual interests within this sphere would dissipate allowing for the purity of the states greater good(Wokler, 2001: 44-70). The idea of the state taking on a life of its own is important, the general will is not to be seen as the sum total of individual wills, but the will of the state alone. As obedience becomes duty, the decision made in the best interest of the state could in theory, be contrary to any one individuals best interest. It goes without saying that education then is a great benefit of direct democracy, on an individual level an educated populace leads to greater awareness of oneself, other citizens and the state within which one lives. This in turn reduces crime and social issues(such as poor parenting, domestic abuse etc) and would then in theory reduce the need for public spending on public sector spending. The level of education required however, especially in light of the complexities of modern living, would require a significant amount of an individuals time, this would affect the number of hours a citizen could contribute to their employment, and break the continuity of that work. This would then affect the productivity of the state, the domestic economy would shrink and given the importance of the economy in the modern world this would have dire consequences, most likely resulting in economic collapse. Direct democracy also makes the assumption that intellectual education is sufficient for a person to make an informed decision, to the neglect of practical education. One would rather have the chef cook ones meal than a person who has merely studied the subject of cooking. For a population base to undergo such a level of practical and intellectual education in secular society is impossible. A second point to note about direct democracy is the sense it gives the individual of having control of his own destiny, taking Scottish independence again, if the decision was made for us by the Hollyrood parliament whether the results of independence were successful or otherwise, we would feel that we were in effect subjugated and in such cases one always tends to focus on the negative. If however we are involved in the decision, for better or worse as individuals we would feel we had a part to play in that outcome, and in turn our own destiny. There are other issues to take into account however, unless an electorate are all equally enthused over participation, something which is ultimately an intangible variant in the equation, then referendums can lead to inconsistent and unrepresentative decision making. Westminster almost unanimously opposes Scottish independence, and as the referendum looms Torres and Whigs will most likely unite in opposing the SNP propaganda campaign with their own opposing it. History has shown favor to the campaigners with the most resources at hand, and as propaganda becomes more insidious in method, one must question just how in control are citizens over their own personal vote. Coming on finally to representative democracy. This is the form most recognized today when we think of liberal democracy. In this form people elect an enlightened group of people, usually politicians, within whom they vest a measure of their natural freedom and liberty, to act on their behalf to make decisions pertaining to the running of the country. The most common form this takes in contemporary society is that of parliaments and presidencies. For the purposes of this essay we shall focus on parliaments. Within this form of representative democracy political parties with varying ideologies all compete for public vote in elections, which arguably is the only real way in which legitimacy is manifest. Their are a plethora of ways parliaments can be arranged, but of importance in the first instance is how manageable this makes public participation. In direct participation the whole electorate must turn out to vote, this is logistically unrealistic, if not impossible in secular society, and would slow the political system down tremendously. In Representative democracy, a politician takes the place of the whole chunk of society which he represents and can focus 100% of their time on fulfilling this role. This relieves the citizen of the enormous burden that political participation would involve, and in turn allows for greater productivity, benefits the economy and gives the citizen the feeling of freedom from the state and this could then be seen as a counterpoint in the argument of what system provides the greater feeling of freedom and control of destiny. The downside of this form of democracy is its susceptibility to corruption and the infiltration of politicians with a self seeking intent. As people feel less of an affinity with the political process, they loose interest and as the decisions a government make are tremendously diverse and complex, it makes it easy for politicians to hide their true intentions and in effect subjugate the populace, at which point it is no longer democratic and legitimacy is lost. The apathy felt by most Westerners over politicians and their rhetoric speaks volumes. There is an element of ignorance is bliss to this however, and we enjoy the subjugation under the illusion of freedom, so long as we are allowed to fill our time as we see fit. In conclusion this essay wishes to attest a prejudice neither way toward direct or representative democracy. They are both sound in reasoning, and have both been proven historically to be equally successful and fallible, and both continue to be used all around us in social institutions. Take for example the Christian church, Baptist are congregational and operate under the direct form of democracy, Presbyterians have a hierarchy and operate under the representative system. The question of which system to use within a communal context depends entirely upon the size and complexity of the constituency, and the number of persons within it. Direct has worked well within smaller rural settings, and representative the only logistically feasible in large metropolitan areas.

Master Harold Essays - Afrikaner People, Athol Fugard,

Master Harold We have all heard the saying that the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. This somewhat describes South Africa in the 1950s. During this time in Africa, the white people kept getting more powerful while the black population kept getting weaker. South Africa's apartheid system gave powerful odds to the whites and created a racist society. In "Master Harold" ... and the boys, a book set around the 1950s and during the apartheid system, the racist attitudes from the apartheid system and Hally's parents affected how Hally treated Sam and Willie, who are black and work for Hally's mother. These attitudes over-shadowed the good relationship Sam and Hally had built through most of Hally's childhood. "Apartheid was a system that deliberately set out to humiliate black people, even to the point of relegating them to separate benches, entails the danger of habitual indifference to the everyday detail that shape black and white relationship and finally, perverts them." (Durbach 69). South Africa passed laws and acts making the black people's lives degrading and ensured the white superiority. Four laws were passed in 1950 which included the Population Registration Act, Group Areas Act, the Amendment to the Immorality Act, and the suppression of the Communism Act. These laws did several things including classified people by color, governed areas for living according to race and controlled ownership of property, prohibited sexual contact across racial lines, and removed due process of laws for blacks. (Durbach 69). Apartheid was used in South Africa because the whites, while a minority in the population, wanted to be in control of the government and society. The way anything that is smaller in size, and therefore weaker, is able to get power is through intimidation. The whites made themselves more powerful by making the blacks feel inferior. The blacks were told they were not good enough and therefore had to be separated from the whites. The whites belittled and separated themselves from the blacks so they wouldn't feel guilty for what they were doing to them. If you make someone become something other than human and lower its level, you don't think you are hurting another person. For instance owners of pets do not feel guilty when you tie up a dog, or let a pet sleep outside. Your pet is just an animal therefore they do not mind or expect much different. Apartheid was more than racial prejudice legislated in South Africa. It became an everyday belief. Racism became part of everyday living it was part of schooling, home life, government, and even on public display such as park benches. It taught society that a seventeen-year old boy was master over two black men. In the book, Hally is quoted as saying to Sam, "Because that is exactly what Master Harold wants from now on. Think of it as a little lesson in respect, Sam, that's long overdue." (Fugard 55) As in the book, a white boy was respected and looked upon as being higher and better than the black men. In any other traditional society, a child is to show respect to any adult, no matter what their color or background. The apartheid system lowered the blacks to a level lower than children, which was very humiliating, especially for an adult man. The most important influence on a child is its parents. The parents' actions, behaviors, and beliefs are passed on to their children. So many white children from South Africa grew up with parents having racist beliefs and not knowing anything different. Hally's parents both had racists beliefs which influenced his attitude towards Sam and Willie. Hally's mother owned a caf?, which employed Sam and Willie, but she never saw them as anything other than servants. "My mother is right. She's always warning me about allowing you to get too familiar." (Fugard 53) She took for granted their loyalty and didn't appreciate all they did for her business and her son. "All that concern you in here, Sam, is to try and do what you get paid for -- keep the place clean and serve the customers. In plain words, just get on with your job. . . You're only a servant here, and don't forget it." (Fugard 53) Hally's father was worse in his racist attitude. His father always wanted Hally and his mother to take more control over the "boys". He wants Hally and his mother to restrict Sam and Willie's freedom so they will understand who is in control and to learn to respect them