Green Street Hooligans Film Review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Green Street Hooligans Film Review - Essay Example The first setting is the university, Harvard University. This college offers educational services to students. It is portrayed as a respectful environment that encourages students to be morally upright. This would be the reason that made Matt be expelled from the institution. He was found in possession of a classmate’s drugs. He is 'therefore' expelled wrongly. Harvard University portrays the learning institutions as being a decent place that mold characters of various students. This place is strict, and any breaking of rules would lead to expulsion. This was made Matt be expelled wrongly even without proper investigation to determine the source or the owner of the drugs. This act would be an example of a loophole that exists in institutions that have strict rules and regulations. In an effort to run away or avoid his parents, Matt takes flight to London to visit his sister who is married to Steve. This gives the film its second setting. This setting is based in London. Moreov er, the London setting encompasses a wide range of settings. From home, Matt goes to the pub where he drinks with colleagues. He goes on to watch a football match and later finds himself in the streets of a city in London where he is involved in a serious fight. This setting in London would be classified into three, the pubs, the football pitch and the streets where fighting occurs. In London that Matt joins a ‘Crew’ that are gangs which would be unofficial and are associated with various football teams. Matt joins new friends who drink a lot, smoke and use vulgar language. This would be associated with football fans in England in support of their teams (Rhodes). The pub where Matt goes to drink indicates a social place where people gather to drink or have their time just before going for football matches. The pubs within England are portrayed as being harbors of hooligans. It would also be reflected as an immoral place that encompasses chaos and evil company. This make s Matt a different person from what he was during his college time. He would now sing rousing within the streets of London. The other setting is the football pitch where fan gather to support their teams. This portrays a football culture in England where fans support their teams. This reflects a culture that is acceptable and has been practiced in England for a long time. The event itself is legitimate or moral, but the activities associated with it thereafter may be ugly. This is what happened in the case of Matt after the football match ended. The enemy team fans were up in arms against each other. This led to serious fights that involved Matt within friends against the fans of the enemy team in the streets. The football game is portrayed as an activity that aggravates hatred and hostility among team fans. Fans drink before going to the pitch to get psyched up so that they can cheer their teams. At times, cheering would affect the result of the game, and this would lead to shoutin g at each other. The result would be a serious fight as in the case of Matt and friends. Although he was initially afraid of violence, through drinking he soon becomes desensitized to Elite gang (Rhodes). The streets have been portrayed as places where fighting takes place. They are evil places that involve blood shedding. In this context, they would reflect dangerous area associated with hooligans, shouting, vulgar language, and painful experiences. This would be the reason why Shannon, her sister is worried and her husband

Trends and Challenges in Human Resource Management Essay Example for Free

Trends and Challenges in Human Resource Management Essay a.Discuss how a complete performance management system differs from the use of annual performance appraisals. The performance management cycle begins with objective setting where the appraisee ought to be oriented about performance expectations for the given performance period. Throughout the period, performance is measured officially through the performance appraisal exercise, where the appraiser is given the chance to give performance feedback through an interview. The performance management system subsumes the performance appraisal process, and is meaningfully linked to rewards based on outcomes or results. Following all these, modifications are implemented to objectives and activities, including the drafting of an individual development plan for closing competency gaps (Clarke, Rogers, Miklos, 1996). The following section describes the different types of performance appraisal systems, which, as emphasized, is only one part of the performance management cycle. The following discusssion is being made to reiterate the idea that performance appraisal is but one part of performance management. Trait-focused appraisal systems. A trait-focused system concentrates on employees’ attributes such as their dependability, assertiveness, and friendliness. Though commonly used, trait focused performance appraisal instruments are not a good idea because they provide poor feedback and thus will not result in employee development and growth (Kingstrom Bass, 1981). For example, in a performance review meeting in which the supervisor tells an employee that she received low ratings on responsibility and friendliness, the employee is likely to become defensive. Furthermore, the employee will want specific examples the supervisor may not have available (Kingstrom Bass, 1981). Behaviour-focused performance appraisal systems. Behaviour-focused instruments focus on what an employee does. Instead of rating them on personal traits, a behaviour-focused instrument would rate him or her on specific behaviours. For example, in the case of a bank teller, some behaviours that may be rated on are as follows: â€Å"Knows customers’ names†, and â€Å"Thanks customer after each transaction.† The obvious advantage to a behaviour-focused system is the amount of specific feedback that can be given to each employee. Further, the focus on behaviour rather than traits does not only reduce employee defensiveness but reduces legal problems (Kingstrom Bass, 1981). From a legal perspective, courts are more interested in the due process afforded by a performance appraisal system that in its technical aspects. After reviewing 295 circuit court decision regarding performance appraisal, Werner Bolino (1997) concluded that performance appraisal systems are most likely to survive a legal challenge if they are based on job analysis, if raters receive training and written instructions, if employees are allowed to review results, and if ratings from multiple raters are consistent. Following the performance appraisal process is performance feedback. In organizational parlance, this is frequently referred to as performance discussions. Perhaps the most important use of performance evaluation data is to provide feedback to the employee and assess his or her strengths and weaknesses so that further training can be implemented. Although this feedback and training should be an ongoing process, the semi-annual evaluation might be the best time to formally discuss employee performance. Furthermore, holding a formal review interview places the organization on better legal ground in the event of a lawsuit (Field Holley, 1982). Normally, in most organizations a supervisor spends a few minutes with employees every six months to tell them about the scores they received during the most recent performance evaluation period. This process is probably the norm because most managers do not like to judge others; because of this dislike, they try to complete the evaluation process as quickly as possible (Field Holley, 1982).   Furthermore, seldom does evaluating employees benefit the supervisor. The best scenario is to hear no complaints, and the worst scenario is a lawsuit. In fact, one study demonstrated that dissatisfaction and a decrease in organizational commitment occurs even when an employee receives an evaluation that is â€Å"satisfactory† but not outstanding (Pearce Porter, 1986). Finally, in the â€Å"tell and sell† approach to performance appraisal interviews, a supervisor â€Å"tells† an employee everything she has done poorly and then â€Å"sells† her on the ways in which she can improve. This method, however, accomplishes little. There are certain techniques that will make the performance appraisal interview more effective, and these are discussed in the following sections. Both the supervisor and the employee must have time to prepare for the review interview. Both should be allowed at least 1 hour to prepare before an interview and at least 1 hour before the interview itself (Pearce Porter, 1986). The interview location should be a neutral place that ensures privacy and allows the supervisor and the employee to face one another without a desk between them as a communication barrier (Rhoads, 1997). Performance appraisal review interviews should be scheduled at least once every 6 months for most employees and more often for new employees. Review interviews are commonly scheduled 6 months after an employee begins working for the organization. It is important to note that while formal performance review interviews occur only twice a year, informal â€Å"progress checks† should be held throughout the year to provide feedback (Rhoads, 1997). While preparing for the interview, the supervisor should review the ratings she has assigned to the employee and the reasons for those ratings. This step is important because the quality of feedback given to employees will affect their satisfaction with the entire performance appraisal process (King, 1984). Meanwhile the employee should rate her own performance, using the same format as the supervisor. The employee also should write down specific reasons and examples that support the ratings she gives herself (King, 1984). At the outset of the interview, the supervisor should communicate the following: 1) the role of the performance appraisal – that making decisions about salary increases and terminations is not its sole purpose; 2) how the performance appraisal was conducted; and 3) how the evaluation process was accomplished. It is advisable that the supervisor also communicate her own feelings about the performance appraisal process (Kelly, 1984). The review process is probably best begun with the employee communicating her own ratings and her justification for those ratings. Research indicates that employees who are actively involved in the interview from the start will be more satisfied with the results. The supervisor then communicates his ratings and his reasons for them (King, 1984). At the conclusion of the interview, goals should be mutually set for future performance and behaviour, and both supervisor and employee should understand how these goals are met (Cederbloom, 1982). In summary, a performance management system encompasses the phases of performance planning, performance monitoring, performance feedback, and performance development. In performance planning, the goal of the superior is to ensure that all objectives, key performance indicators, and even resources for performance delivery are clear and understood. In performance monitoring, the supervisor aims to keep track of whether the employee is delivering in accordance with expectations. This is done through communication and progress tracking. The performance appraisal exercise is only one practice subsumed in this whole system, particularly under performance feedback giving. Finally, in the performance development phase, performance gaps are addressed through coaching, classsroom training, and other individual development initiatives. b.Discuss the advantages of managing turnover in organizations. Turnover has been linked with affective and continuance commitment. Each of the three distinct dimensions to organizational commitment: affective, continuance and normative commitment are defined (Meyer and Allen, 1997). 1)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Affective commitment – means an employee’s personal attachment and identification to the organization.   This results in a strong belief in an acceptance of the organization’s goals and values.   â€Å"Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so† (Parà © and Tremblay, 2000, p. 5) 2)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Continuance commitment – is a tendency to engage in consistent lines of activity based on the individual’s recognition of the â€Å"costs† associated with discontinuing the activity.  Ã‚   â€Å"Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so.† (Parà © and Tremblay, 2000, p. 5) 3)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Normative commitment – provides that employees exhibit behaviours solely because they believe it is the right and moral thing to do. â€Å"Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization.† (Parà © and Tremblay, 2000, p. 5) In their findings, Parà © and Tremblay provide that affective commitment and continuance commitment are negatively related to turnover intentions (Parà © and Tremblay, 2000, p. 6).   In addition to these two distinct types of commitment affecting turnover intention, their studies also points to the factor they call Organizational Citizenship Behaviour or OCB.   OCB is considered as a key element in organizational effectiveness.   OCB is defined as â€Å"an employee’s willingness to go above and beyond the prescribed roles which they have been assigned† (Parà © and Tremblay, 2000, p. 6, quoting from Organ 1990). Based on Parà © and Tremblay’s findings, the stronger the citizenship behaviour, the more likely they are to stay in their company.   In effect, those with high turnover intentions are not as committed as those who intend to stay long with the company. The Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham (1980) show that the job characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task significance, task autonomy, and feedback   are likewise linked to management of turnover. The five core job characteristics are in continuous interaction with individual differences that evoke three critical psychological states in an employee.   These three states are: 1) when the job is structured by skill variety, task identity and task significance this could lead employees to experience meaningfulness in their work. 2) The second state, task autonomy, which leads to feelings of responsibility for the outcomes of work. 3) The third and last state is feedback, which leads employees towards knowledge of the results of their work (Douthit 2000; Huber 2000). These three critical psychological states lead to a set of affective and personal outcomes:   high internal work motivation, high growth satisfaction, high general satisfaction, high work effectiveness, and low rate of absenteeism (Mohamed 2004; Donovan and Radosevich, 1998). These affective and personal outcomes are the results of en employee’s job characteristics.   They are defined as follows: High internal work motivation – this is the degree to which an employee is willing to work and to consider the organizational objectives as part of his or her own goals (Mohamed, 2004). High growth satisfaction – this is the achievement of the employee in overcoming challenges, succeeding and growing (Steers Black, 1994) High general satisfaction – this the feeling derived from the overall satisfaction with the work itself. â€Å"This type of satisfaction is reflected mainly in decreased rates of absenteeism among employees† (Steers Black, 1994). High work effectiveness – this refers to both the quality and quantity aspects of work performance (Hackman Oldham, 1980). Low rate of absenteeism. In other words, in managing retention and in effect managing these characteristics of the job, the organization shall have more motivated, more satisfied, more effective employees (Hackman Oldham, 1980). c.Examine contemporary safety and health management issues in the workplace. Workplace Safety: Information (2007) defines workplace safety as an environment encompassing all the factors that may have impact on the welfare of the employees in terms of safety working conditions and the health of laborers. Aspects that are given priorities are the hazards found in the surroundings, workplace areas, conditions and workplace process flowcharts. Other issues among employees regarding grooming, drug and alcohol abuse, absenteeism, horseplay and tardiness, violence and work output submissions are also covered. If there is one organization monitoring the activities of the safety in the workplace, it is the Occupational Safety and Health Organization (OSHA). OSHA is focusing on three goals as its cornerstones in regulating safety practices in organizations. First, it improves the safety and health of the workers, from the top management to the bottom, to make sure that there would be less accidents, hazards, injuries, illnesses, and fatalities that will occur in the companies. Second, it operates by making changes in the workplace culture to heighten the awareness of both the employer and its workers in committing its involvement in the health and safety of the company populace. Third, it assures the security of public confidence in maintaining the delivery of OSHA’s programs and services. Looking at the federal guidelines, OSHA’s proposed programs are less tough and are user-friendly for different companies (Guastello, 1993). However, a common query among organizations is that the benefits of behaviour modification programs, such as incentives may not have lasting effects or may diminish over time (Guastello, 1993). Many agree that safety programs using incentives can be found in an existing and well-rounded comprehensive safety program. Based on OSHA, there are four elements of an effective safety and health program such as management commitment and employee involvement; worksite analysis; hazard prevention and control; and safety and health training. In all these elements of incentive programs employees’ participation can be recognised.   First, a number of employees can be heads of safety committees, worksite analyses, accident investigations and safety suggestions. Second, by assigning among them a supervisor hazard prevention and control may be strengthened since peers will follow anti-hazard rules in their workspace.Third, employees can be seen in the active attendance and participation in safety meetings through quizzes, interactive role-playing and roundtable discussions. Giving the employees the chance to participate and be recognised in effective safety programs, they would feel that it is a privilege to be part of the core group of safety culture in the family. At the same time the myriad of manuals and guidelines provided discussing safety workplace incentives will still be very useful in keeping the employees aware of the controls and measures that the company is undertaking for the welfare of the workers in general (Walker, 2007). Reduction in the number of accidents has been shown to be possible with the strict implementation of workplace behaviour modifications (Lund Aaro, 2004). Using safety incentives is just one of the ends to the ways of improving population’s safety behaviours. By introducing a safety culture scheme in the organization, individual and group motivational factors for safe behaviour, risk justification, and optimism in workplace are deemed to show great improvement (Williamson et al., 1997). In one way or another, these factors are crucial and are influenced by the reward system such as incentives by recognising the individuals who are putting their best efforts to their work and doing their jobs in a safe manner. Safety incentive programs generally have two categories: (1) injury/illness-based incentive programs and (2) behaviour-based incentive programs (Hinze, 2002). Injury/illness-based incentive programs are based on the number of times that an illness or injury is incurred and such occurrence will be the criterion in rewarding workers and crew members. The programs go along with the assumption that: (1) facilities and equipment used are in good condition and do not cause any accidents; (2) employees are given proper training and work knowledge in administering the use of office equipment; and (3) accidents are usually the results of worker’s negligence or compromise on safety (Smith, 1997). Meanwhile, behaviour-based incentive programs observe the workers in such a way that their attitude towards work is assessed. Previous studies have identified the means of measuring worker’s behaviour as a means for recognising safety performance (Duff et al., 1993). Examples of activities of behaviour that can be rewarded are active participation in safety meetings and training sessions, ability to give sound suggestions about the improvement of safety in the jobsite, proper use of personal equipment and other behaviour avoiding accidents (Geller, 1996). d.Also, include a discussion of future trends and challenges in HR management. Since the theories, approaches and practices for Human Resource Management can be traced back to Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management, trends can be expected. Some of the recent trends that are being observed are moonlighting, human resource outsourcing, and two of Charles Handy’s organizational models – Shamrock and Federal, respectively. Moonlighting is when an employee holds dual or multiple jobs at the same time. Many employees become moonlighters if they salary they get from their primary job is not enough. Moonlighting has its advantages too. It can reduce the rate of turnovers in industries where work is routinary and it can also be a means for a company to retain their employees. The downside of moonlighting is that the company risks losing confidential information to competitors. It can also lead to absenteeism due to exhaustion and burnout from both jobs (Tett Meyer, 1993). Outsourcing is one of the latest additions to the trends in human resource management. An organization seeks out sub contractual employees for either product design or manufacturing from a third-party organization at a lower cost. Outsourcing is good for small to medium-sized organizations that are growth oriented since it can provide the owners free time to focus on developing strategies to gain competitive edge (Ulrich, 1997). It can also help transform the business by increasing the flexibility of the organization to meet the changing conditions, demands for products and services and technologies. It also makes the experts available for you. By outsourcing experts, you are able to improve your risk management and control over the business. Your credibility can also be improved since you do have the best in the field working for you. You also gain a network by associating your organization to the provider. Charles Handy’s organizational models are being practiced by enterprises depending on the nature of their industry (Armstrong, 2003). With these models, organizations can be flexible with their organizational structure in order to ensure their competitive edge. The Shamrock model or clover model consist of three main levels that represent a different type of organizational objectives: the core, the contractual fringe, and the flexible workforce. The core is basically the thinking part of the model. They are the ones that possess the most knowledge about the field and are the most paid. The contractual fringe is the part of the model that provides materials and service inputs to the core. The flexible workforce is responsible for the workload itself. Though these three workforces or parts need to be managed separately and differently, the organization has three different parts with varying responsibilities and expectations and yet work to achieve the same goal. In the Federal model, power is distributed and it is about building high commitment, professional organizations. The federal is a bit complex. It is decentralized but at the same time centralized when the situations calls for it. It is a system of small core organizations with much focused core competencies sustained by many resources available to them. It is also believed that in order to improve productivity a strong social agreement between the organization and the union and a good social welfare system is a must. Although more and more trends come to pass to keep up with the changes, more and more conflicting issues arise too. Selecting who to hire is becoming a more complex task. Training and developments are hard to keep up with since more technological improvements are made and competition is getting stiffer by the minute. Maintaining current employees is proving to be one of the top human resource managers’ problems, since more organizations try to outdo each other in regards to the compensation and benefits they offer to their would-be and existing employees. Diversity within the workplace is posing to be a relevant issue for the human resource department (Chen, 2007). Motivation and loyalty of employees is a perennial contemporary issue for the human resource manager. Mergers, acquisition, turnovers, and consolidation happen more often, and throughout all these, strategic human resource management is necessary to ensure continued delivery of objectives amidst turbulent change. References Armstrong, M. (2003). A handbook of human resource management practice. London: Kogan Page. Cederbloom, D. (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications, and suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7, 219-227. Chen, A. (2007). The challenges of human resource management. Retrieved April 9, 2008 from http://ezinearticles.com. Clarke, D., Rogers, V. Miklos, S. (1996). Upward appraisal: Does it make a difference? Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. Donovan, J.J. Radosevich, D. (1998). The moderating role of goal commitment on the goal difficulty–performance relationship: a meta-analytic review and critical re-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 83, 308–15. Douthit, M.W., (2000). Job satisfaction returns to human and social capital. Journal of behavioral and applied management, 2000, 1(1), 67. Duff, A. R., Robertson, I. T., Cooper, M. D., Phillips, R. and United Kingdom Health Safety Executive (HSE). (1993). Improving safety on construction sites by changing personnel behaviour (HSE Contract Research Report No.51/ 1993). Field, H. S., Holley, W. H. (1982). The relationship of performance appraisal system characteristics to verdicts in selected employment discrimination cases. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 392-406. Geller, E. (1996). The psychology of safety: How to improve behaviours and attitudes on the job, Pennsylvania: Chilton Book Company. Guastello, S. (1993). Do we really know how well our occupational accident programs work? Safety Science, 16, 445-463. Hackman, J.R. Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work design. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison–Wesley, 1980, 114–21. Hinze, J. (2002). Safety incentives: Do they reduce injuries? Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 7(2), 81-84. Kelly, C. M. (1984). Reasonable performance appraisals. Training: Development, 38(1), 79-82. King, P. (1984). Performance planning and appraisal. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kingstrom, P.O., Bass, A. R. (1981). A critical analysis of studies comparing behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS) and other rating formats. Personnel Psychology, 34, 263-289. Lund, J. Aaro, L. (2004). Accident prevention: Presentation of a model placing emphasis on human, structural, and cultural factors. Safety Science, 42, 271–324. Meyer, J.P.    Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Sage Publications. Mohamed, A.H. (2004, May) Using the job characteristics model to compare patient care assignment methods of nurses, 10(3), 389-405. Parà ©, G. and Tremblay, M. (2000).   The measurement and antecedents of turnover intentions among IT professionals.   Scientific Series.   Ciprano.   September 2000. Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211-218. Rhoads, C. (1997). A year-round schedule said to take sting out of performance reviews. American Banker, 162(28), 6. Smith, T.A. (1997) What’s wrong with safety incentives? Professional Safety, May, 44. Steers, R.M. Black, J.C. (1994). Organizational behavior, 5th ed. New York, Harper Collins. Tett, R. P., Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover: Path analyses based on meta analytic findings. Personel Psychology, 46, 259-293. Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Boston, Mass.:Harvard Business School Press. Walker, J. (2007). ABCs of safety incentives: Positive consequences to behaviour. Facility Safety Management. Retrieved April 10, 2008 from http:// www.fsmmag.com/Articles/2005/12/ABCs%20of%20Safety%20Incentives%20Positive%20Consequences%20to%20Behaviour.htm. Werner, J. M., Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 1-24. Williamson, A., Feyer, A., Cairns, D. Biancotti, D. (1997). The development of a measure of safety climate: The role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Safety Science, 25(1-3), 15-27. Workplace Safety: Information. (2007). Workplace safety: Information and much more from Answers.com. Retrieved April 11, 2008 from http://www.answers.com/topic/workplace-safety?cat=biz-fin.

Analysis Of The Civil Conflict In Sri Lanka Politics Essay

Analysis Of The Civil Conflict In Sri Lanka Politics Essay Good morning members of the United Nations. I erg you all to see the tragedy of Sri Lanka as it is vital that mediation from you is present during this post war contingency. I wish to inform you of the situation which is occurring in Sri Lanka in deep hope that you will lend assistance to achieve unity and peace. With the danger of being insensitive, it must be stressed that the discrimination experienced by the Tamil people at the hands for the Sinhalese, was not a sufficient justification for the devastation caused by the Tamils terrorist methods. Although the United Nations has developed mechanisms to bring peace within Sri Lanka they have evidently failed as they were poorly coordinated and ineffectively designed. These methods simply aim to bring a sense of normality to effected communities (http://www.undp.lk/). However, this campaign does not stress the imperativeness of peace and encouraging non-violent methods for the Tamils. The United Nations primary function is to render assistance to its members therefore actions to achieve peace by non- belligerent means in Sri Lanka needs to be taken. The departure of the British came with the creation of a discriminative nation governed wholly by the Sinhalese people. The rise of militant Tamil separatist nationalism in the 1980s consequently began the civil war. Here in Sri Lanka, nationalism is viewed as a political struggle of dominant or subordinate groups in core or peripheral regions for the continuation or end of domination and exploitation. The outcome of the Civil War did not give the Tamils their desired separate nation- sate, making loss of life and destruction ultimately pointless. Strong recommendations need to be made to the Tamil and Sinhalese population in order to build peace for present day and the future. The Tamil Tigers should have acknowledged defeat many years ago and for the well-being of the Tamil people, the LTTE should have without a doubt withdrawn their terrorism. Im not dismissing the discrimination and oppression which has been placed upon the Tamils. When the British departed Sri Lanka in the 1940s, the Sinhalese majority took control and governed the recent independent nation. It is to be recognised that this ethnic dispute arose from the British showing supposed favouritism by importing and employing Tamils for agricultural jobs. This preferential treatment was seen by the Sinhalese people as discrimination. Consequently when they gained control the Tamil people missed out on official jobs and university admission (www.cfr.org). This was a drastic reversal of discrimination and undoubtedly caused great oppression and this bigotry still continues in some areas. Although there was minor conflict in ancient times between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Hindu Tamil people regarding who arrived on the island first, the emergence and radicalisation of Sinhalese and Tamil nationalist politics came as a result of the injustice caused by the Britis h (S.Hassan, 2009). The Sinhalese government failed to pay attention to the hopes and aspirations of the Tamil people. The measures that were made to equalise the nation fuelled large scale anti- Tamil feeling. The Liberation Tigers was formed in the 1980s which fought for the common Tamil desire for a separate nation state to call their own. They assumed the right to have their own, self governing nation on the island of Sri Lanka on the bases that the Sinhalese did not treat them with equality. A marginalised perspective from Mangala Samaraveera, the former foreign minister claims that the Government started registering all Tamils at Colombo on the grounds that they were security threats. He expressed that they were basically naming all Tamils as potential terrorists (www.greenleft.org.au). However many are critical of this sympathetic approach as the Sri Lankan Government is simply protecting Sri Lanka and the countries worldwide. Peter Chalk of Rand Corporation has sufficiently argued The LTTE threatens not only the domestic stability of Sri Lanka but also the security of the international system as a whole (www.lankaweb.com). Activities used by Tamil Terrorists such as movement of refugee, arms transfers and drug trafficking have repeatedly demonstrated potential to internationally cause great disruption during the post-war period and is therefore supporting this claim. This Needless to say, the actual discourse on the present conflict in Sri Lanka is more complex and dynamic that what can ever be truly understood though it is clear the people have faced intense inequity. As unjust as it may appear to some Tamil sympathisers, were these grounds of discrimination enough to start such a catastrophic Civil War? The Sri Lankan Civil War was the result of ethnic conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamil people and such violent events caused by the Tamil Tigers were demoralizing. The Tamil Tigers initiated a full scale guerrilla war against the Sri Lankan Army by the Tamils secessionist campaign. By the end of the century over seventy thousand civilians were killed. There have been many efforts by the Sinhalese to resolve this conflict yet the Tamils ignored the several cease-fires. In April 2006 it was the Tamil Tigers who withdrew from the negotiations. They went on to invent the suicide belt, pioneered the use of women in suicide attacks and assassinated official figures. The Tamils have staged two thirds of all the worlds suicide bombing which were driven by ethno-nationalism. (S.Hasson, 2009).The assassinations caused by the terrorists were simply daunting, respected figures were murdered such as former India Prime Minister Ghandi, Sri Lankan President Premadassa, many foreign minister s and members of parliament. The most extreme terrorist groups around the world such as Al-Qaida have adapted these murderous methods and notorious suicide attacks. Over fifteen thousand armed combats have broken out and Buddhist shrines have been destroyed. These are just a few atrocities caused by the Tamils in the civil war. Dharmapala, a Buddhist thinker expressed a definitive opinion in his works that the Tamil people have vandalised Sri Lanka, destroyed ancient temples and have nearly annihilated the historic race (K. Stoke 1998). Globally this approach is taken and a press release in 2009 stated, Children returning from school were confronted by LTTE recruiters in a white van with tinted glasses parked nearby. Individual children were cornered by groups of recruiters. Expressions of reluctance by the children were met by the recruiters with severe abuse. (www.dailynews.com). Therefore not only are the Tamils terrorising the Sinhalese the extremism extends to their own youth. The Sri Lankan civil war was initiated by the Tamils and spread immense devastation nationally with their terrorism. The Tamil people did not win this war nor did the hatred that came out of their guns earn them the right to a separate nation-state. The outcome of the war left not only the Tamil people but the whole of Sri Lanka confounded as the Tamil Tigers tactics were unjustifiable and ineffective. The Sri Lanka Civil War came to a bitter end in 2009 and the terroristic tactics employed by LTTE were again not justified and unarguably caused more harm. The war did not eradicate discrimination as they had hoped, instead nationally and internationally the Tamil people were perceived as terrorists resulting in further discrimination. They employed child soldiers and forced their people to fight for something evidently, unachievable. It must be stressed that this war raged for twenty five years and the effects still persists. They have violated the human rights of Sri Lankans and their own people by causing conflict and safety zones. At the end of the war, Tamil official Pathmanathan admitted, It is our people who are dying now from bombs, shells, illness and hunger. We cannot permit any more harm to befall themWe have decided to silence our guns (www.guardian.co.uk). It is clear to see that the Tamil people are suffering even more so as a result of the civil war although the former Foreign minister contradicts this notion as he believed the threat of the LTTE returning has not yet disappeared as the strong Tamil ideologies are still present in Sri Lankan society. I am absolutely convinced that he outcome of the Civil War is a clear reminder that the methods of Tamil Terrorists were unjustifiable and unsuccessful in countless ways. The next step we are faced with is achieving peace within our country. I believe it is of the upmost importance to re-build our country so it is known for its ability to surface from horrendous circumstances. Norwegian Minister for International Development expressed in 2009 that Sri Lanka has won the battle but has not won peace (www.abc.net.au). We owe it to our country to now find this peace with the help of the United Nations. Sri Lankan president shows the UNs lack of assistance when he expressed, Although the UN system has set up mechanisms to deal with many of these problems, the capacity of the united nations to address these challenges effectively has been brought into question(www.abc.net.au). The newly elected government stresses this as it is his obligation to protect his people Tamil or Sinhalese though the support of the United Nations is necessary. It is imperative that the United Nations appoints a respected figure to mediate negotiations. To achieve peace and non-vi olent means for expressing Tamil wishes, the abandonment of the Tamils militaristic approach is vital furthermore the Sri Lankan Government should adopt a strategy that favours political accommodation. There needs to be acknowledgment of grievances on both sides in order to start negotiations. The political party, the Tamil National Alliance need to be supported my all Tamils to achieve greater autonomy for Tamils as a step to one day becoming politically viable enough to develop a separate nation-state. Finally LTTE and the Government need to address the human rights violations that occurred during this civil war and begin to re-establish communities. Peace in Sri Lanka undoubtedly needs to be achieved. The loss of life and bloodshed caused was again inexcusable and therefore peace and amends need to be made of Tamil terrorist acts. The Tamil people are without a doubt terrorists and have continued to cause conflict in Sri Lanka. It is clear the despite the discrimination placed upon the Tamils in the past the Tamil Tigers methods were not justified. It is apparent that the United Nations are desperately needed to persuade the Tamil people to negotiate politically their aims for greater autonomy. These attacks of hatred, suicide bombings assassinations and all the innocent lives the liberation Tigers have taken are unwarrantable. The departure of the British left the Tamils vulnerable and initiated an instable nation full of ethnic conflict. In spite of this, their methods were violent and the twenty five year Civil War can never be erased. Military spokesman expressed, They fought for an Eelam that they could never win. It was only a waste of lives. They have caused massive death and destruction over the years. (www.abc.net.au). So I plead, to the members of the United Nations we must join together and dedicate our effort to preventing terrorism for the greater benefit of Sri Lanka and the Globe.

Essay --

THE JULIA GABRIEL ONLINE MEDIA BRAND VOICE Our brand voice captures our unique personality and shares it with the world. It distinguishes us from the others and informs them of everything we do, everything we write and everything we say. It’s how our audiences hear us and how they remember us, and it’s how we share our bold vision for the future. Good communication is more than what we say; it’s how we say it. While having an online social media presence is exciting, we need to remember that whichever platform we engage our audiences on, it becomes a brand media â€Å"storefront† that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This constant connectivity makes it more important than ever for us maintain brand standards on social networks, as well as all forms of digital marketing. We need to remember that while interacting in social networks can provide efficient channels to communicate the uniqueness, value and personality of our brand to a very specific audience, there are expectations and responsibilities that Julia Gabriel Centres need to be aware of, to ensure that our brand is protected. The same considerations that apply to our messaging and communications in conventional media still apply in the online social media space. This means engaging our target audience with a consistent brand experience and messaging, that is not only in the right context, but also communicated with the intended voice, look and feel that is consistent with our brand identity. Have fun, but be smart. Use sound judgment and common sense, adhere to the Company’s values, and the same Company policies that you follow in the offline world. BASIC SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDELINES (FACEBOOK ORIENTED) Responsible Engagement While JGE is still exploring social ... ...nd when necessary to maintain conversations. ï‚ § Brainstorm ideas across Centres to decide on appropriate engagement approaches that can be taken out across all the markets ï‚ § Hold regular meetings internally to discuss bi-monthly content plans where new ideas on contests, and activities can be shared and discussed ï‚ § Have an online content approval process in place, particularly for major campaigns such as competitions and promotions to align activities with the brand values and positioning ï‚ § Consider agreeing on a planned content ratio of 60% centralised and 40% localised content for a balance of consistency and spontaneity. Countless conversations take place online every day, and we want our Centres, who are our brand ambassadors, to join those conversations, represent our brand well, and share the optimistic and positive spirit of the JGE group of companies.

Choque cultural

When we think about traveling, we don't usually think about the â€Å"side effects† that it might have. Now, I'm going to talk about one of them that is called â€Å"culture shock† and try to connect with the experience I had abroad. Culture shock Is a subject that's been studied for many psychologists and can be defined as a feeling of uncertainty, confusion or anxiety that people experience when they live In or visit a different culture. In the studies they classified that In five stages.The first stage Is known as â€Å"honeymoon† In this period of time Is when you first arrive abroad and everything Is new excellent and kind of strange, you want to see the different social norms, try the weird new food and get Into the modes of conversation of the new culture, In this period you might even suffer from the time difference and you body can feel it, but you are excited the discover what that new place has to offer to you. This stage can last for a long while, bec ause it might seem as an adventure.However, the second stage can be a little bit harder, because in this stage is the erred that you kind of settled down into that new world, it's the time you can have problems because of the language barrier or with the rules of the house, if you live in a homesteads then you also start realizing certain things when you start having your tasks, such as working and studying; if you live by yourself you have to do all the housework, like cleaning, doing laundry, cooking, doing groceries.. TCL, In the same stage, you start missing your family friends and things from your house, it might happen even more if you are not welcome in the place you are staying.Something that shouldn't be a problem for you if you were in your homeland, now that you are abroad, it is going to be a problem, and because of this you may develop unhealthy habits (like smoking/ drinking too much, or being so concerned over food or contact with people from that culture) sometimes w hen it's really hard to the people deal with this shock, they may even get sick or have healthy problems, and it may make them want to go back to their own culture or even spend their time with people from their own culture .This is known as the rejection stage. The third stage Is called the adjustment stage. It happens when you start realizing that all those bad things that happened before were not so bad. In this stage you realize that you â€Å"grew up†, you start feeling stronger, you basically can take care of yourself without â€Å"much help† you fell really Independent. The fourth stage Is called â€Å"at ease at last† In this stage, you feel as If you are home, feeling comfortable, you can face strongly with the problems you might have and you will know how to deal and solve them.In this stage you are able to even give advice to people from your country that has Just arrived abroad. The fifth and last stage of culture shock, Is not really known, It Is ca lled reverse culture shock, which for me was the hardest! You suffer of that when you go back to you own culture, and realize that you have changed and the things there as well. You feel a fish out of the water. All the simple things that were k before you left, now are a problem or you have difficult to adapt yourself again.

Law of Tort

4. 0 INTRODUCTION Occupiers' liability generally refers to the duty owed by land owners to those who come onto their land. However, the duty imposed on land owners can  extend beyond simple land ownership and in some instances the landowners may transfer the duty to others, hence the term occupier rather than owner. The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability  to arise. Occupiers' liability is perhaps a distinct form of negligence in that there must be a duty of care and breach of duty, causing damage.The rules of remoteness apply to occupiers liability in the exact same way that they apply to negligence claims. Liability can arise on occupiers for omissions since their relationship  gives rise to  duty to take action to ensure the reasonable safety of visitors. The law relating to occupiers' liability originated in common law but is now contained in two major pieces of legislation: Occupiers Liability Act 1957   – which imposes an obligation on occupiers with regard to ‘lawful visitors' Occupiers Liability Act 1984 – which imposes liability on occupiers with regard to persons other than ‘his visitors'.Different levels of protection are expected under the two pieces of legislation with a higher level of protection afforded to lawful visitors. NB: Lawful visitors are owed the duty set out in the 1957 Act; non-lawful visitors are owed the duty set out in the 1984 Act. It is for the claimant to prove that he is a lawful visitor and therefore entitled to the more favorable duties in the earlier Act 4. 1 Occupiers( who is an occupier) At common law (and under the statute occupation is based on control and not necessarily on any title to or property interest in the land.Both the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984  impose an obligation on occupiers rather than land owners. The question of whether a particular person is an occupier is a question of fact and depends on the d egree of control exercised. The test applied is one of ‘occupational control' and there may be more than one occupier of the same premises: In Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 522- House of Lords The claimant and her family stayed at a public house, The Golfer’s Arms in Great Yarmouth, for a holiday. Unfortunately her husband died when he fell down the stairs and hit his head.The stairs were steep and narrow. The handrail stopped two steps from the bottom of the stairs and there was no bulb in the light. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 against the Brewery company, Lacon, which owned the freehold of The Golfer’s Arms and against the Managers of the Pub, Mr. & Mrs. Richardson, who occupied the pub as a licensee. Held: Both the Richardson’s and Lacon were occupiers for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and therefore both owed the common duty of care. It is possible to have more than one occupier.The quest ion of whether a particular person is an occupier under the Act is whether they have occupational control. Lacon had only granted a license to the Richardson’s and had retained the right to repair which gave them a sufficient degree of control. There is no requirement of physical occupation. However, it was found that Lacon was not in breach of duty since the provision of light bulbs would have been part of the day to day management duties of the Richardson’s. Since the Richardson’s were not party to the appeal the claimant’s action failed.Lord Denning: â€Å"wherever a person has a sufficient degree of control over premises that he ought to realize that any failure on his part to use care may result in injury to a person coming lawfully there, then he is an † occupier † and the person coming lawfully there is his † visitor â€Å": and the † occupier † is under a duty to his † visitor † to use reasonable care. I n order to be an â€Å"occupier â€Å"it is not necessary for a person to have entire control over the premises. He need not have exclusive occupation. Suffice it that he has some degree of control. He may share the control with others. Two or more may be â€Å"occupiers â€Å".And whenever this happens, each is under a duty to use care towards persons coming lawfully on to the premises, dependent on his degree of control. If each fails in his duty, each is liable to a visitor who is injured in consequence of his failure, but each may have a claim to contribution from the other. † Physical occupation is not a requirement: Harris v Birkenhead Corp [1976] 1 WLR 279 The claimant Julie Harris was 4 years old when she wandered off from a children’s play park with her friend. They entered a derelict house which was due for demolition. The house had not been secured and the door was open.They went upstairs and Julie sustained serious injury when she fell from a window. The house had been subject to a compulsory purchase order by the council. The house had been owned by a private landlord and the tenant was offered alternative accommodation by the council. The tenant informed the council that she did not want to take up the offer of accommodation and made her own arrangements and left the property. The council served 14 days notice on the owner of their intention to take possession of the property, but never actually took physical possession at the expiry of the 14 days.Held: The Council had the legal right to take possession to secure the property, actual physical occupation was not required to incur liability as an occupier. The council were therefore liable. 4. 1. 1 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 imposes a common duty of care on occupiers to lawful visitors. By virtue of s. 1 (3) (a), the Act applies not only to land and buildings but also extends  to fixed and movable structures, including any vessel, vehicle or ai rcraft. The protected damage under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 includes death, personal injury and damage to property. . 1. 1. 1 Lawful visitors – Lawful visitors to whom occupiers owe  the common duty of care  for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 include: i)   Invitees – S. 1 (2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – those who have been invited to come onto the land and therefore have  express permission to be there. ii) Licensees – S. 1 (2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – those who have  express or implied permission to be there. According to S. 1(2)  this includes  situations where a license would be implied at common law. (See below) iii) Those who enter pursuant to a contract – s. (1) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – For example paying guests at a hotel or paying visitors to a theatre performance or to see a film at a cinema. iv) Those entering in exercising a right conferred by law – s. 2(6) Oc cupiers Liability Act 1957 – For example  a person entering to read the gas or electricity meters, a police executing warrants of arrest or search) 4. 1. 1. 2 Implied license at common law In the absence of express permission to be on the land, a license may be implied at common law where there exists repeated trespass and no action taken by the occupier to prevent people coming on to the land.This requires an awareness of the trespass and the danger: Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10  House of Lords The Claimant was injured by a horse when using a short cut across the defendant’s field. The land had been habitually used as a short cut by members of the public for many years and the defendant had taken no steps to prevent people coming on to the land. The defendant was aware that the horse was dangerous. Held: The defendant was liable. Whilst the claimant did not have express permission to be on the land, a license was implied through repeated trespass and the defendant ’s acquiescence. NB: Repeated trespass alone insufficient:Edward v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737 A particular spot on a railway was used as a short cut on a regular basis. The fence was repaired on several occasions and whenever it was reported to have been interfered with. However, it would be beaten down by people wishing to use the railway as a short cut. Witness testimony was to the effect that the fence was in good repair the morning of the incident. Held: No license was implied. The Defendant had taken reasonable steps to prevent people coming onto the railway. Lord Goddard: â€Å"Repeated trespass of itself confers no license† 4. 1. 1. 3 Allurement principleThe courts are more likely to imply a license if there is something on the land which is particularly attractive and acts as an allurement to draw people on to the land. Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1922] 1 AC 448 House of Lords The defendants owned the Botanic Gardens of Glasgow, a park which was open to the public. On the park various botanic plants and shrubs grew. A boy of seven years ate some berries from one of the shrubs. The berries were poisonous and the boy died. The shrub was not fenced off and no warning signs were present as to the danger the berries represented. Held: Glasgow Corporation was liable.Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger. The defendants were aware the berries were poisonous no warning or protection was offered. However, since the introduction of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984, the courts have been reluctant to imply a license: Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705 The defendant owned Brereton Heath Country Park. It had previously been a sand quarry and they transformed it in to a country park and opened it up for public use. The defendants had created a lake on the park which was surrounded by sandy banks.In the hot weather many visitors came to th e park. Swimming was not permitted in the lake and notices were posted at the entrance saying â€Å"Dangerous water. No swimming†. However despite this, many people did use the lake for swimming. Rangers were employed and on occasions sought to prevent swimming but some of the visitors would be rude to the rangers’ attempts to prevent them and many continued to swim. The claimant was injured when he dived into shallow water and broke his neck. At the Court of Appeal it was held that he was a trespasser despite the repeated trespass and inadequate steps to prevent him swimming.They also stated that the warning signs may have acted as an allurement to macho young men. The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that since the introduction of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984, the courts should not strain to imply a license. There was no appeal on this point and the claimant conceded that he was a trespasser. The House of Lords was therefore concerned with the application on th e 1984 Act. The Court of Appeal had held that the council were liable but reduced the damages by 2/3 under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.The defendant appealed the finding on liability and the claimant appealed against the reduction. House of Lords held: The Council was not liable. No risk arose from the state of the premises as required under s. 1 (1) (a) Occupiers Liability Act 1984. The risk arose from the claimant’s own action. He was a person of full capacity who voluntarily and without pressure or inducement engaged in an activity which had an inherent risk. Even if there was a risk form the state of the premises, the risk was not one against which the council would reasonably be expected to offer the claimant some protection under s. (3) (C). In reaching this conclusion Lord Hoffman looked at the position if he had not been a trespasser and applied the common duty of care owed under the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957. He was of the opinion that the re was no duty to warn or take steps to prevent the claimant from diving as the dangers were perfectly obvious. This was based on the principle of free will and that to hold otherwise would deny the social benefit to the majority of the users of the park from using the park and lakes in a safe and responsible manner.To impose liability in this situation would mean closing of many such venues up and down the country for fear of litigation. He noted that 25-30 such fractures occurred each year nationwide, despite increased safety measures the numbers had remained constant. 4. 1. 1. 4 Non lawful visitors The 1957 Act does not extend protection to: ? trespassers ? Invitees who exceed their permission ? Persons on the land exercising a public right of way:   Ã‚  McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [1994] 3 All ER 53 House of Lords The claimant was injured when she tripped in a hole on land owned by the defendant.The land was a public right of way. It was held that the defendan t was not liable as  the claimant  was not a lawful visitor under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 because she was exercising a public right of way. †¢ Persons on the land exercising a private right of way:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Holden v White [1982] 2 All ER 328 Court of Appeal The claimant, a milkman, was injured on the defendant’s land by a manhole cover which broke when he stepped on it. At the time he was delivering milk to the house of a third party who had a right of way across the defendant’s land.It was held that he was not entitled to claim against the defendant since he was exercising a right of way and was not therefore a lawful visitor of the defendant. 4. 1. 1. 5 The common duty of care The common duty of care is set out in s. 2 (2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957: S. 2(2)   – ‘The common duty of  care is to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the  visitor will be reasonably safe in using the pre mises for the purposes for which he  is invited or permitted  by the occupier to be there. ‘   Thus the standard of care varies according to the circumstances.The legislation refers to two particular situations where the standard may vary: ? S. 2(3)(a) – an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults ? S. 2(3)(b) – an occupier may expect that a person  in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it i)   S. 2(3) (a) Child visitors The courts will take into account the age of the child and level of understanding a child of that age may be expected to have. They may be more adventurous and may not understand the nature of certain risks.The occupier does not however have to guarantee that the house will be safe, but only has to take reasonable care. If the child’s parents are present, they must share some responsibility, and, even if they are not present, it may b e relevant to the occupier’s duty that they thought it prudent to allow their child to be where he was. Titchener v British Railways Board [1983] 1 WLR 1427 House of Lords The Claimant, a 15 year old girl, was out walking with her boyfriend who was 16. They took a short cut across a railway line and they were both hit by a train. He was killed and she was seriously injured.There was a gap in the fence at the place where they crossed and there was a pathway leading to this gap which suggested that there was repeated trespass. Also it was accepted that either the Defendant was aware of the gap or would have been aware upon reasonable inspection. The Defendant raised the defense of volenti under s. 2 (3) of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 Held: The scope of the duty owed to trespassers varies on the circumstances. On the facts of this case the Defendants did not owe a duty to a 15 year old trespasser who was fully aware of the risks.Even if the Defendant did owe a du ty of care the defense of volenti under s. 2 (3) would succeed. Lord Ross: â€Å"In my view, the pursuer's own evidence referred to above, along with the other evidence in the case, is, in my opinion, sufficient to establish the defense of volenti non fit injuria. Such defense is open to the defenders under section 2 (3) of the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, and no duty under section 2 (1) of the Act is imposed upon an occupier to a person entering on the premises in respect of risks which that person has willingly accepted as his.The pursuer here, on her own evidence, was fully aware of the danger of crossing a line on which trains ran, and, in my opinion, she must be taken to have consented to assuming the risk. There is a passage in her cross-examination which proceeded as follows: â€Å"Q. And you knew that it would be dangerous to cross the line because of the presence of these trains? A. Yes. Q. Well why did you do it if you knew it would be dangerous? A. Because it was shorter to get to the brickworks. Q. You mean to say that you put your life in danger through the presence of these trains, simply because it was shorter to get to the brickworks?A. Well, before my accident I never ever thought that it would happen to me, that I would never get hit by a train, it was just a chance that I took. † â€Å"A person who takes a chance necessarily consents to take what come†   Ã‚  Jolley v Sutton [2000] 1 WLR 1082 Two 14 year old boys found an abandoned boat on land owned by the council and decided to do it up. The boat was in a thoroughly rotten condition and represented a danger. The council had stuck a notice on the boat warning not to touch the boat and that if the owner did not claim the boat within 7 days it would be taken away. The council never took it away.The boys had been working on the boat for 6-7 weeks when one of them suffered severe spinal injuries, resulting in paraplegia, when the boat fell on top of him. The boys ha d jacked the boat up to work on the underside and the jack went through the rotten wood. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. The trial judge found for the claimant. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that whilst it was foreseeable that younger children may play on the boat and suffer an injury by falling through the rotten wood, it was not foreseeable that older boys would try to do the boat up.The claimant appealed. House of Lords held: The claimant's appeal was allowed. The risk was that children would â€Å"meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury† The actual injury fell within that description. Lord Steyn: â€Å"The scope of the two modifiers – the precise manner in which the injury came about and its extent – is not definitively answered by either The Wagon Mound ( No. 1) or Hughes v. Lord Advocate. It requires determination in the context of an intense focus on the circumstances of each ca se. † Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1922] 1 AC 448 House of LordsThe defendants owned the Botanic Gardens of Glasgow, a park which was open to the public. On the park various botanic plants and shrubs grew. A boy of seven years ate some berries from one of the shrubs. The berries were poisonous and the boy died. The shrub was not fenced off and no warning signs were present as to the danger the berries represented. Held: Glasgow Corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger.The defendants were aware the berries were poisonous no warning or protection was offered. Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450 A 5 year old boy was walking across some open ground with his 7 year old sister. He was not accompanied by an adult. He was injured when he fell into a trench. The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume that prudent parents would not all ow their children to go unaccompanied to places where it is unsafe. Devlin J on duty owed to children â€Å"The law recognizes a sharp difference between children and adults.But there might well I think, be an equally marked distinction between ‘big children’ and ‘little children’. †¦The occupier is not entitled to assume that all children will, unless they are allured, behave like adults; but he is entitled to assume that normally little children will be accompanied by a responsible person. †¦The responsibility for the safety of little children must rest primarily upon the parents; it is their duty to see that such children are not allowed to wander about by themselves, or at least to satisfy themselves that the places to which they do allow their children to go unaccompanied are safe.It would not be socially desirable if parents were, as a matter of course, able to shift the burden of looking after their children from their own shoulders to tho se persons who happen to have accessible pieces of land. † ii) S. 2(3)(b) Common calling ( Trade Visitors) This provision applies where an occupier employs an expert to come on to the premises to undertake work. The expert can be taken to know and safeguard themselves against  any dangers that arise from the premises in relation to the calling of the expert. For example if an occupier engages an lectrician, the electrician  would be expected to know the dangers inherent in the work they are employed to do. Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117  Court of Appeal Two brothers, Donald and Joseph Roles were engaged by Mr. Nathan as chimney sweeps to clean the flues in a central heating system at Manchester Assembly Rooms. The flues had become dangerous due to carbon monoxide emissions. A heating engineer had warned them of the danger, however, the brothers told him they knew of the dangers and had been flue inspectors for many years.The engineer monitored the situation throughout the day and at one point ordered everybody out of the building due to the levels of carbon monoxide. The brothers ignored this advice and continued with their work. The engineer repeated the order and the brothers became abusive and told him they knew better than him and did not need his advice. The engineer forcibly removed them from the building. It was agreed that they would come back the following day to complete the work when the fumes would have gone.They were also told they should not do the work whilst the fires were lighted. However, the next day the brothers were found dead in the basement having returned the previous evening to complete the work when the fires were lit. Their widows brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Held: The defendant was not liable. The dangers were special risks ordinarily incident to their calling. The warnings issued were clear and the brothers would have been safe had they heeded the warnings. Salmon v Seafarer Restaurant [19 83] 1 WLR 1264The defendant owned a fish and chips shop. One night he left the chip fryer on and closed the shop for the night. This caused a fire and the fire services were called to put out the fire. The claimant was a fire man injured in an explosion whilst fighting the fire. He had been thrown to the ground whilst footing a ladder on a flat roof. The defendant sought to escape liability by invoking s. 2 (3) (b) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 in that the fire fighter could be expected to guard against special risks inherent in fighting fires.Held: The defendant was liable. Where it can be foreseen that the fire which is negligently started is of the type which could require firemen to attend to extinguish that fire, and where, because of the very nature of the fire, when they attend they will be at risk even if they exercise all the skill of their calling, there is no reason why a fireman should be at any disadvantage in claiming compensation. The duty owed to a fireman was not limited to the exceptional risks associated with fighting fire but extended to ordinary risks.Ogwo v Taylor [1987] 3 WLR 1145 House of Lords The Defendant attempted to burn off paint from the fascia boards beneath the eaves of his house with a blow lamp and in so doing set fire to the premises. The fire brigade were called and the Claimant, an acting leading fireman, and a colleague entered the house wearing breathing apparatus and the usual fireman's protective clothing and armed with a hose. The two firemen were able, with the aid of a step- ladder, to squeeze through a small hatch to get into the roof space. The heat within the roof space was intense.The Claimant suffered serious burn injuries to his upper body and face from scalding steam which must have penetrated his protective clothing. Held: A duty of care was owed to a professional fireman. There was no requirement that the risk be exceptional. The defense of volenti had no application. Lord Bridge: â€Å"The duty of p rofessional firemen is to use their best endeavors to extinguish fires and it is obvious that, even making full use of all their skills, training and specialist equipment, they will sometimes be exposed to unavoidable risks of injury, whether the fire is described as â€Å"ordinary† or â€Å"exceptional. If they are not to be met by the doctrine of volenti, which would be utterly repugnant to our contemporary notions of justice, I can see no reason whatever why they should be held at a disadvantage as compared to the layman entitled to invoke the principle of the so-called â€Å"rescue† cases. † iii)   Warnings and warning  signs It may be possible for an occupier to discharge their duty by giving a warning some danger on the premises(‘Loose carpet’; ‘slippery floor’) – See   Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117 above)   However, S. (4)(a) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 provides that a warning given to the visitor  will not b e treated as absolving the occupier of liability unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. The occupier i. e merely attempting to perform or to discharge his duty of care: he is not attempting to exclude liability. Is something slippery has been spilt on the floor of a shop, the occupier can (a) close the shop, (b) clean up the spillage or (c) give a warning so that the visitor can avoid the spot or step gingerly.The warning must  cover the danger that in fact arises: White v Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296 Mr. White was killed at a Jalopy car race due negligence in the way the safety ropes were set up. A car crashed into the ropes about 1/3 of a mile from the place where Mr. White was standing. Consequently he was catapulted 20 foot in the air and died from the injuries received. Mr. White was a driver in the race but at the time of the incident he was between races and standing close to his family. He had signed a competitors list whic h contained an exclusion clause.There was also a warning sign at the entrance to the grounds which stated that Jalopy racing is dangerous and the organizers accept no liability for any injury including death howsoever caused. The programme also contained a similar clause. His widow brought an action against the organizer of the event who defended on the grounds of  volenti  and that they had effectively excluded liability. Held: The defence of  volenti  was unsuccessful. Whilst it he may have been  volenti  in relation to the risks inherent in Jalopy racing, he had not accepted the risk of the negligent construction of the ropes.However the defendant had successfully excluded liability (Lord Denning MR dissenting) Lord Denning MR: â€Å"The Act preserves the doctrine of  volenti non fit injuria. It says in Section 2(5) that: â€Å"the common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the vi sitor†. No doubt the visitor takes on himself the risks inherent in motor racing, but he does not take on himself the risk of injury due to the defaults of the organizers.People go to race meetings to enjoy the sport. They like to see the competitors taking risks, but they do not like to take risks on themselves, even though it is a dangerous sport, they expect, and rightly expect, the organizers to erect proper barriers, to provide proper enclosures, and to do all that is reasonable to ensure their safety. If the organizers do everything that is reasonable, they are not liable if a racing car leaps the barriers and crashes into the crowd – see Hall v. Brooklands (1933) 1 K. B. 206.But, if the organizers fail to take reasonable precautions, they cannot excuse themselves from liability by invoking the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria: for the simple reason that the person injured or killed does not willingly accept the risks arising from their want of reasonable care, see  Slater v. Clay Cross Co. (1956) 2 Q. B. 20B; Wooldridge v. Summers (1963) 2 Q. B. at page 69; Nettleship v. Weston    (1971) 2 Q. B. at page 201. † There is no duty to warn against obvious risks: Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189 Court of Appeal The claimant’s husband, Mr.Darby, drowned in a pond owned by the National Trust (NT). The pond was one of five ponds in Hardwick Hall near Chesterfield. Two of the ponds were used for fishing and NT had taken steps to prevent the use of those ponds for swimming or paddling. However, with regards to the pond in which the fatality occurred, NT had done nothing to prevent visitors using the pond and it was common for visitors to use the pond for paddling and swimming during the warm summer months. On the day in question Mr. Darby had been paddling with his children around the edge of the pond.He then swam to the middle to play a game he had often played whereby he would go under water and then bob up to the surfa ce. However, he got into difficulty and drowned. The claimant argued that because  of NT’s inactivity in preventing swimmers using the pond, both she and her husband had assumed the pond was safe for swimming. Held: NT was not liable. The risk to swimmers in the pond was perfectly obvious. There was no duty to warn of an obvious risk Cotton v Derbyshire Dales District Council [1994] EWCA Civ 17 Court of AppealThe claimant, a 26 year old man, had gone out for the day with a group of friends and his fiance over the Easter bank holiday. They had visited 3 pubs where the claimant had drunk about 4 pints. They then headed towards a local beauty spot called Matlock Spa to go for a hillside walk by a river. The parties were in high spirits and became separated. The claimant and his fiance drifted from the pathway and he was seriously injured when he fell off a cliff. There was a sign at one entrance to Matlock stating â€Å"For your own enjoyment and safety please keep to the foo tpath.The cliffs can be very dangerous, and children must be kept under close supervision. † However, there was no such sign at the entrance used by the claimant. The claimant brought an action based on the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 for the failure to adequately warn him of the risk. Held: There was no obligation to warn of an obvious risk. The claimant would have been aware of the existence of the cliff so such a warning would not have affected events. Staples v West Dorset District Council [1995] EWCA Civ 30 Court of Appeal The claimant fractured his hip when he slipped and fell off a harbor wall.The harbor wall was known as The Cobb and was a well-known tourist attraction commonly used as a promenade. The edge of The Cobb was covered with algae and extremely slippery when wet. The claimant had crouched in the area affected by the algae to take a photo of his friends, when he slipped and fell off a 20 foot drop landing on rocks below. He brought an action based on the Occ upiers Liability Act 1957 arguing that no warning signs were present as to the dangers of slipping. Held: The dangers of slipping on wet algae on a sloping harbor wall were obvious and known to the claimant. Therefore there was no duty to warn. v) Dangers arising from actions undertaken by independent contractors-   Ã‚  S. 2(4)(b) Occupiers Liability Act 1957   An occupier is not liable for dangers created by independent contractors if  the occupier acted  reasonably in all the circumstances in entrusting the work to the independent contractor and took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the  work carried out was  properly done and the contractor was competent. Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553  House of Lords Sedgefield District Council, in pursuance of a development plan to build sheltered accommodation, engaged the services of Mr.Spence to demolish a building. It was a term of the contract that the work was not to be sub-contracted out. In breach of this term, Mr. Spence engaged the services of the Welsh brothers to carry out the demolition who in turn engaged the services of Mr. Ferguson to assist. Mr. Ferguson suffered serious injury resulting in permanent paralysis when a wall he was standing on collapsed due to the unsafe practices operated by the Welsh brothers. He brought an action against the Council, Mr. Spence and the Welsh brothers. The trial judge held that the Welsh Brothers were liable but that Mr.Spence and the Council were not liable. Mr. Ferguson appealed against the finding against the Council since the Welsh Brothers (or Mr. Spence) had the funds or insurance to meet liability. Held: The appeal was dismissed. Mr. Ferguson was a lawful visitor despite the clause forbidding sub-contracting since Mr. Spence would have apparent or ostensible authority to invite him on to the land. However, the danger arose from the unsafe system of work adopted by the Welsh Brothers not the state of the premises. Whilst there was evidence t hat Mr.Spence had sub-contracted demolition work to those executing unsafe practices on  previous occasions, there was no evidence that the Council were aware of this. Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1041  Court of Appeal The claimant, a 63 year old woman, was injured at a summer fair hosted by West Hertfordshire Hospital. She was injured whilst using a ‘splat wall’ whereby participants would bounce off a trampette against a wall and become attached to the wall by means of Velcro material. The injury occurred as a result of negligent set up of the equipment.The equipment was provided by  a business called ‘Club Entertainments’ who were an independent contractor engaged by the Hospital. Club Entertainment’s public liability insurance had expired four days before the incidence and thus they had no cover for the injury. They agreed to settle her claim for ? 5,000. Mrs. Gwilliam brought an action against the hospita l based on their failure to ensure that the entertainment arranged was covered by public liability insurance. She claimed the difference between the ? 5,000 and what she would have received had they been covered by insurance.Held: The Hospital owed a duty of care Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 this duty did extend to checking whether the independent contractor had insurance cover since this would be relevant to whether they were competent. However, there was no breach of duty since the Hospital had enquired and had been told by Club Entertainment that they had insurance cover. There was no duty to inspect the insurance documents to ensure that cover was adequate. 4. 1. 3 Defenses applicable to Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Volenti non fit injuria  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ s. (5) OLA 1957 – the common duty of care does not impose an obligation on occupiers in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor. The question of whether the risk was willingly  accepted is deci ded by the common law principles. Contributory negligence – Damages may be reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 where the visitor fails to take reasonable care for their own safety. Exclusion of Liability   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ s. 2(1) OLA 1957 allows an occupier to extend, restrict, exclude or modify his duty to visitors in so far as he is free to do so.White v Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR (discussed earlier) Where the occupier is a business the ability to exclude liability  is subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 4. 1. 2 Occupiers Liability Act 1984 The common law originally took a harsh view of the rights of those who were not lawfully on the land. (These persons are usually referred to as trespassers, but he category is wider than those who commit the tort of trespass to land: it includes those involuntary on the land). The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 imposes a duty on occupiers in relation to persons ‘other than his visitors' (S. 1 (1 ) (a) OLA 1984).This  includes trespassers and those who exceed their permission. Protection is even afforded to those breaking into the premises with criminal intent see Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239. Whilst it may at first appear harsh to impose a duty on occupiers for those that have come on to their land uninvited and without permission, liability was originally recognized at common law for child trespassers where the occupier was aware of the danger and aware that trespassers, including children would encounter the danger. British Railway Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877   overruling Addie v. Dumbreck [1929] AC 358.Addie v Dumbreck  [1929] AC 358  House of Lords the defendant owned View Park Colliery which was situated in a field adjacent to a road. There was a fence around the perimeter of the field although there were large gaps in the fence. The field was frequently used as a short cut to a railway station and children would use it as a playground. The defendant would often warn people off the land but the attempts were not effective and no real attempt was made to ensure that people did not come onto the land. A child came on to the land and was killed when he climbed onto a piece of haulage apparatus.Held: No duty of care was owed to trespassers to ensure that they were safe when coming onto the land. The only duty was not to inflict harm willfully. Viscount Dunedin: â€Å"In the present case, had the child been a licensee, I would have held the defenders liable; secus if the complainer had been an adult. But, if the person is a trespasser, then the only duty the proprietor has towards him is not maliciously to injure him; he may not shoot him; he may not set a spring gun, for that is just to arrange to shoot him without personally firing the shot.Other illustrations of what he may not do might be found, but they all come under the same head—injury either directly malicious or an acting so reckless as to be tantamount to malicious acting. † ‘Occupier' is given the same meaning as under the 1957 Act (S. 1 (2) OLA 1984). Since the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 applies to trespassers, a lower level of protection is offered. Hence the fact that  death and personal injury are the  only protected forms of damage and occupiers have no duty in relation to the property of trespassers. (S. 1 (8) OLA 1984). Also the duty only arises when certain risk factors are present. . 1. 2. 1 The circumstances giving rise to a duty of care S. 1 (3)  Occupiers Liability Act 1984 an occupier owes a duty to another (not being his visitor) if:   (a) He is aware of a the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists   (b) He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe the other is in the vicinity of the danger or may come into the vicinity of the danger   (c) The risk is one in which in all the  circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection If all three of these are present the occupier owes a duty of care to the non-lawful visitor.The criteria in s. 1 (3) must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time the alleged breach of duty resulted in injury to the claimant:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Donoghue v Folkestone Properties [2003] EWCA Civ 231 Court of Appeal Mr. Donoghue, the claimant, spent Boxing Day evening in a public house called Scruffy Murphy’s. It was his intention, with some of his friends, to go for a midnight swim in the sea. Unfortunately in his haste to get into the water he dived from a slipway in Folkestone harbor owned by the defendant and struck his head on an underwater obstruction, breaking his neck.At his trial evidence was adduced to the affect that the slipway had often been used by others during the summer months to dive from. Security guards employed by the defendant had stopped people from diving although there were no warning signs put out. The obstruction that had injured the claiman t was a permanent feature of a grid-pile which was submerged under the water. In high tide this would not have posed a risk but when the tide went out it was a danger. The claimant’s action was based on the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Mr. Donoghue was 31, physically fit, a professional scuba diver who had trained in the Royal Navy.It was part of his basic knowledge as a diver that he should check water levels and obstructions before diving. The trial judge found for the claimant but reduced the damages by 75% to reflect the extent to which he had failed to take care of his own safety under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The defendant appealed contending that in assessing whether a duty of care arises under s. 1(3) each of the criteria must be assessed by reference to the individual characteristics and attributes of the particular claimant and on the particular occasion when the incident in fact occurred i. . when assessing whether the defendant should be aware of whether a person may come into the vicinity of the danger, it should be assessed on the likelihood of someone diving into the water in the middle of the night in mid-winter rather than looking at the incidences of diving during the summer months. Held: Appeal allowed. The test of whether a duty of care exists under s. 1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the alleged breach resulted in injury to the claimant. At the time Mr.Donoghue sustained his injury, Folkestone Properties had no reason to believe that he or anyone else would be swimming from the slipway. Consequently, the criteria set out in s. 1 (3) (b) was not satisfied and no duty of care arose. 4. 1. 2. 2 Standard of care S. 1 (4) OLA 1984 – the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that the other does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned. Revill v Newber y [1996] 2 WLR 239 Court of Appeal Mr. Newbery was a 76 year old man. He owned an allotment which had a shed in which he kept various valuable items.The shed was subject to frequent breaking and vandalism. Mr. Newbery had taken to sleeping in his shed armed with a 12 bore shot gun. Mr. Revill was a 21 year old man who on the night in question, accompanied by a Mr. Grainger, and went to the shed at 2. 00 am in order to break in. Mr. Newbery awoke, picked up the shot gun and fired it through a small hole in the door to the shed. The shot hit Mr. Revill in the arm. It passed right through the arm and entered his chest. Both parties were prosecuted for the criminal offences committed. Mr. Revill pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Mr. Newbery was acquitted of wounding. Mr.Revill brought a civil action against Mr. Newbery for the injuries he suffered. Mr. Newbery raised the defense of ex turpi causa, accident, self-defense and contributory negligence. Held: The Claimants action was success ful but his damages were reduced by 2/3 under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 to reflect his responsibility for his own injuries. On the application of ex turpi causa Neill LJ: â€Å"For the purposes of the present judgment I do not find it necessary to consider further the joint criminal enterprise cases or the application of the doctrine of ex turpi causa in other areas of the law of tort.It is sufficient for me to confine my attention to the liability of someone in the position of Mr. Newbery towards an intruding burglar. It seems to me to be clear that, by enacting section 1 of the 1984 Act, Parliament has decided that an occupier cannot treat a burglar as an outlaw and has defined the scope of the duty owed to him. As I have already indicated, a person other than an occupier owes a similar duty to an intruder such as Mr. Revill. In paragraph 32 of their 1976 Report the Law Commission rejected the suggestion that there should be no duty at all owed to a trespa sser who was engaged in a serious criminal enterprise. Ratcliff v McConnell and Harper Adams College [1997] EWCA Civ 2679  Ã‚   Court of Appeal The claimant was a student at Harper Adams College. One night he had been out drinking with friends on campus and they decided they would go for a swim in the college pool which was 100 yards from the student bar. They climbed over a locked gate into the open air swimming pool. The pool had a notice at the entrance which stated the pool would be locked and its use prohibited between the hours of 10pm -6. 30am.There was a notice at the shallow end in red on a White background stating ‘Shallow end’ and a notice at the deep end stating ‘Deep end, shallow dive’. However, the boys did not see the signs because there was no light. The three boys undressed. The claimant put his toe in the water to test the temperature and then the three of them lined up along the side of the pool and dived in. Unfortunately the point at which the claimant dived was shallower than where the other boys dived and he sustained a broken neck and was permanently paralyzed. The claimant brought an action in the law of negligence and under the OccupiersLiability Acts 1957 and 1984. The trial judge held that the claimant was a trespasser since he was not permitted to go into the pool and that the College owed a duty of care under the 1984 Act since the pool had often been used by students in the prohibited hours so the College should have been aware that the claimant was within a class of persons who may come into the danger. The breach was in not taking more preventative action to prevent use of the pool. The claimant’s damages were, however, reduced by 60% under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.The defendants appealed contending the evidence relied on by the claimant in terms of repeated trespass all took place before 1990 before they started locking the gates. Held: The appeal was allowed. The cla imant was not entitled to compensation. The defendant had taken greater steps to reduce trespass by students since 1990. The only incidence of trespass to the pool in the four years prior to the claimant’s injury, related to students from a visiting college and therefore there was no reason for the college to suspect the students had come into the danger so no duty of care arose under s. (3) (b) Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Also the trial judge had incorrectly identified the danger. The pool itself was not dangerous it was the activity of diving into it which was unsafe. This was an obvious danger to which there was no duty to warn. By surrounding the pool with a 7 foot high fence, a locked gate and a prohibition on use of the pool in the stated hours the College had offered a reasonable level of protection. The duty may be discharged by giving a warning or discouraging others from taking the risk S. (5) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 – note there is no obligation in re lation to the warning to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe – contrast the provision under the 1957 Act. Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705  House of Lords (discussed above) 4. 1. 2. 3  Defenses Volenti non fit Injuria – s. 1 (6) OLA 1984 – no duty of care is owed in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor. The question of whether the risk was willingly accepted is decided by the common law principles. Contributory negligence – Damages may be reduced under the Law Reform Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 where the visitor fails to take reasonable care for their own safety. Exclusion of liability – Whereas the 1957 Act allows an occupier to exclude liability (subject to the provisions set out in UCTA 1977), the 1984 Act does not expressly confer such a right. This may be an oversight by the legislature and it may be possible to exclude liability since it is not expressly forbidden or it may be that the legis lature  was of the opinion  that it should not be possible to exclude liability for the basic level of protection afforded to trespassers. . 2 Liability for Manufacturers The narrow rule in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 recognizes that manufacturers owed a duty of care to ultimate consumers of the manufactured products. Over the years this duty was extended and refined and took on in practice some of the characteristics of strict liability. Parliament has now imposed such a strict liability on manufacturers under the Consumer Protection Act 1997.Although this act does not expressly have effect in place of the rules of common law( in the way that the Occupiers’ Liability Act do, in practice it affords more satisfactory remedies , and the narrow rule in Donoghue v Stevenson need no longer be studied in detail. 4. 3 Liability for employers An employee injured at work has three possible actions against the employer. i) An action in negligence for breach of the employerâ €™s duty of care. This is the concern this chapter ii) An action for breach of statutory duties imposed by parliament on the employer. The principles of the tort of breach of statutory duty will be explained later.The content of the various regulations prescribing safety equipments, clothing, procedures and so forth fall outside the syllabus and are part of a specialist course in employment law. iii) The employer may be vicariously liable for the torts committed by another employee. The principle of and the justifications for vicarious liability will be explained in detail later. For the present if is enough to note that an employer (even if not personally at fault) is in law answerable for the torts committed by employees in the course of their employment. The inter- relation between these actions is of some interest.Before 1948 an action based on vicarious liability was not available because of the doctrine of ‘common employment’. If A, an employee of X Ltd, tortu ously injured B, another employee of X ltd, then X Ltd would be liable to C, but not to B, because A and B were in the ‘common employment’ of X ltd. This doctrine provided protection for the employer against possible expensive tort claims. To offset this however the courts (a) modified the common law negligence action in a way that favored the employee and (b) permitted civil action for damages to be brought for breaches of safety regulations.The doctrine of common employment was abolished by statutes in 1948(Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. So employees now have a vicarious liability claim and also the benefit of the modified common law action and actions for breach of statutory duty. The Nature of the Common Law Action The employer’s common law duty of care differs from the ordinary duty of care. It is said to be ‘non-delegable’. This is most clearly explained by Lord Hailsham of St Maryleborne in McDermid v Nash Dredging[1987] AC 906 as fo llows this special sense does not involve the proposition that the duty cannot be delegated in the sense that it is incapable of being the subject of delegation, but only that the employer cannot escape liability if the duty has been delegated and then not properly performed’. The facts of the case were that M was employed as a deckhand, by the defendants, but was sent by them to work on a ship operated by a different company (in fact the parent company of the defendants). He was seriously injured when the captain of the ship (not an employee of the defendants) carelessly operated the safety systems.The defendants were liable because their duty had been delegated to the employees of the parent company and not properly performed. Details of this area would be discussed when looking at vicarious liability. But in summary it is worth noting that employers owe a duty of care to their employees, but this duty is different in nature from the normal duty of care, being described as non-delegable. Court are now developing principles under which employees can also recover for the effects of work related stress. ==================================END========================================