HUMAN RIGHTS OUTLINE OF LEGAL ISSUES

PROBLEM #1
Barry Jones is an installer of telephone and cable lines for a local non-unionized telephone company, Easy Access Telephone Co. His responsibilities include driving a truck to various residential and business sites, working outside and climbing to high places during all seasons, gaining access to the interior of residential and business sites, installing required telephone or cable lines, climbing into small areas such as basement crawl spaces or attics, answering questions customers may have while on site and explaining the installation and services.
Barry has always had satisfactory job performance evaluations and has been performing his job for 16 years. There are 24 other telephone installers, 15 warehouse people, 30 office workers and 12 people in customer service.
Barry has just begun having problems with depression and was recently diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. While he was installing a high-speed internet cable at a customer’s residence, he was talking very loudly and in an agitated voice. The customer, an elderly lady, was nervous with him and made a complaint to the telephone company after he left.
Barry’s Supervisor, Suzie Goodfellow, decided that he could no longer be left alone with customers in their houses. He was told that his job would change, and he would work in the warehouse loading boxes onto shelves and trucks. Barry was not happy with this change and indicated that he would not do it. He was very agitated during this exchange and Suzie decided he wasn’t safe to work with and fired him.
Barry filed his complaint with the Human Rights Commission on January 3, 2018. The parties have been unable to settle, and the matter is now set for a panel hearing.

PROBLEM #2
Gini Valentino is a dance instructor at Happy Hearts Dance Studio. She has been teaching dance lessons at Happy Hearts for the last 5 years. She is by far, the favourite dance instructor of the students. Many students ask for her personally when renewing their lessons each year. She is very outgoing, flexible and a good dancer.
Some of the dances Gini teaches are: the Vienna waltz, the old-time waltz, the samba, the tango, the quickstep and various country line dances. In addition to her dance instruction, Gini is responsible for booking students, collecting fees, booking rooms at the dance studio and reception duties when she is not teaching. There are 5 dance instructors at Happy Hearts and one full-time receptionist who is a qualified dance instructor and who substitutes for the dance instructors when they are not available to teach a class.
Last January, Gini decided to take up snowboarding as a hobby. She became good at it fairly quickly since she is so athletic. Unfortunately, on February 14, 2017 she was snowboarding and took a bad fall. Her pelvis was broken in 3 places and she strained her hamstring.
She was off work from February 14, 2017 until June 14, 2017. At that time, her short-term disability coverage ended, and her doctor did not feel that she had a serious enough problem to go on long term disability. Although, her pelvis has healed, it did not heal perfectly, and she does feel pain on exertion. Her hamstring also gives her some trouble if she stretches too much. Although the hamstring is likely to heal if not aggravated, her pelvis will likely cause her some trouble throughout her life.
Happy Hearts owner, Jim Crusty, doesn’t feel that she is capable of teaching the dances any longer. Gini feels that she could teach some of the less strenuous dances. She also feels that she is still a valuable employee given her good people skills. Jim and Gini had several meetings to discuss her abilities and the number of classes she could teach but on June 30, 2017, Jim indicated “too bad, so sad” and told her not to come back to work. Gini filed her complaint with the Human Rights Commission the next day. No reasonable settlement has been reached.

Legal Principles:
In order to determine if Jane is negligent, one needs to show that:
• She owed a duty of care to Tom
• She breached the standard of care owed to him
• Tom suffered an injury
• Jane’s carelessness caused Tom’s injury
According to Donoghue v. Stevenson, a person owes a duty of care to anyone where it is reasonably foreseeable that they may be harmed by that person’s conduct.
According to Yates, a breach of the standard of care occurs when someone does not behave as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. Also, the injury suffered need not be just a physical injury but could emotional injury as well. However, the injury must be “material”; it cannot be just a small scratch, for example.
Again, according to Yates, the injury must be a direct consequence of the careless behavior of the person accused of being negligent.
Application to Facts of Case:
1. Jane owed a duty of care to Tom because he was standing on the sidewalk next to Jane’s bicycle and it would be reasonably foreseeable that if she was careless, he could be injured
2. Jane breached the standard of care owed to Tom because she proceeded to ride her bicycle while looking behind her and didn’t see Tom standing there
3. Tom suffered an injury because he had a broken toe 4. Jane’s carelessness caused Tom’s injury because his toe cracked when she rode over it

Legal Issue #2 – Was Tom contributorily negligent and is, therefore, partially responsible for his own injury?
Legal Principles:
Although it is clear that Tom would owe a duty of care to himself, in order to determine if Tom is contributorily negligent, one needs to show that:
1. He breached the standard of care and did not behave as a reasonable person
2. He suffered an injury
3. His carelessness, at least partially, caused his injury
4. Fault can be apportioned to him and, therefore, reducing the damages owed to him
According to section 1(1) of the Contributory Negligence Act, a judge can apportion blame to the victim of negligence where his or her own negligence has also contributed to the victim’s injury.
In order to determine negligence, one would follow the steps outlined under Legal Issue #1
Application to Facts of Case:
1. Tom did not behave reasonably when he was jaywalking across the street and ran onto the sidewalk in front of Jane’s bicycle
2. He suffered a broken toe
3. Tom was hit by the bicycle because he ran onto the sidewalk after jaywalking and, then, his toe was broken
4. Tom’s behaviour was clearly partially a cause of the accident

Legal Issue #1 – Was Jane negligent when she ran over Tom’s foot with her bicycle?

Legal Issue #2 – Was Tom contributorily negligent and is, therefore, partially responsible for his own injury?

 

 

 

Sample Solution

ACED ESSAYS