IRAC #1
1
IRAC #1
Mohammed Alobaidallah
Sacramento City College
BUS 345
Brian Mom
IRAC #1
2
Summery
In the year 2016, Jim expressed his interests in training for the balling game with
purposes of beating his long term friend who always defeated him. He took a step of registering
for some classes with a trainer around his residential area where the training sessions were
agreed on contract terms. Ken, who happened to be his trainer, built a lot of confidence in Jim’s
good feedback of fast learning.
During one of the sessions, Ken playfully threw the heavy ball to Jim as he expected him
to have a quick response as he did. Unfortunately, the ball slipped and hit Jim’s leg. Jim got
injured although he said that it wasn’t serious. In two days later, Jim came back for his next
session where he started complaining of pains on his leg as he tried to lift his leg up. Jim called
his friend who took him to the hospital immediately where the doctors discovered that his foot
was fractured. He received a lot of treatment which cost him a lot.
Jim’s lawyer including himself claimed that the trainer game institution and Ken the
trainer were both liable and negligent for the costly and serious injuries sustained by Jim during
his training session. On the other hand, the game trainer institution put blames on Jim for the
injuries with claims of having signed a waiver which meant, he clearly understood the risks that
were on his exposure during the training process(Halliday, 2015).
Issue
Was the fault of negligence of the trainer game company and Ken in the course of
providing the services for balling to Jim?
IRAC #1
3
Rules
According to business and law, four elements are of importance for any occurrence of a
negligence case to fall to blame. (1) The plaintiff owns the duty of care (2) there is an existence
of a breach of a duty of care (3) the breaching of law caused the plaintiff injury, and (4) the harm
suffered by the plaintiff was recognizable legally. These elements make the duty of care to be
central which means that there may be a commitment of a tort if an individual is not careful
enough for his actions. The obligation of attention is quantified in court according to the
plausible person standard, an objective standard that asks what a likely person would have done
in the same circumstances as the defendant (Vago, 2015).
The obligation of care may be even more pronounced in this case because a personal
trainer could disputably be considered a professional “if an individual has erudition, adeptness,
or training superior to that of an ordinary person (Miller, 2016).” If Ken is regarded as a
professional in his field, he would be judged in court by the plausible professional standard for
his field, and could be sued for malpractice. At the very least, he can be judged by a higher
standard than that of a likely person.
Another paramount rule, in this case, is the posit of jeopardy, which is what the
defendant’s lawyer claims as their bulwark to negligence. It asserts that the plaintiff had
erudition and voluntary postulation of the peril by signing a waiver, and they are consequently
not liable. In court, posit of jeopardy is a legal bulwark that can confuse a negligence case.
IRAC #1
4
Analysis
Ken and the game trainer institution were negligent during the process of training
because they breached their obligation of care. In the fitness world, a certified personal trainer is
likely the highest caliber of expertise that an average person can employ. As the head coach at
one of the biggest game training institutions, Ken could be considered a trusted employee with a
degree of responsibility for his clients. As a fitness expert, his conduct did not reflect the
expertise that his designation represents.
Ken put Jim on an unstable surface without ascertaining his safety. While a plausible
professional (or a credible game center) might sanction a client to surmise the jeopardies of
minor injuries associated with fitness training, it is an adamant claim that multiple fractures on
various body components are a flamboyantly obvious risk that the client must surmise. Even
after the injury occurred, Ken did not show concern for taking care of Jim’s injuries and did
nothing further to alleviate the damages that occurred during his time exhibitor (Halliday, 2015)
Ken’s breach of his obligation of attention regarding the opportune and safety utilization
led to Jim’s fall and injury, and it would be intransigent for a client to be responsible for injuries
obtained due to incongruous injunctive authorization.
Jim sought for Ken’s services to amend his fitness and instead suffered broken bones. A likely
person would not postulate that broken bones were a possibility with supervision in a controlled
game environment.
It is why Jim could not have assumed the peril of this kind of serious injury the action of
receiving the ball is not accompanied by great amounts of jeopardy when used safety and under
the care of a professional. In fact, the Institution’s owner’s manual advises against throwing the
ball to one another. Unprofessional games are not recommended, as this information is
IRAC #1
5
additionally stamped on the bottom of the unit and the ‘Frequently Asked Questions.' It is
pellucid that Ken did not have the adequate erudition to utilize this contrivance safely in his
training (Vago, 2015).
Conclusion
In the same year of 2016, the Superior Court Judge Blue Rive sided with the plaintiff,
verbally expressing that thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people, go to game training
centers as such, and there is a societal prospect that such activities will be plausibly safe. Blue
withal dissented with the defendant’s claim that playing with the Ball unnecessarily came with
intrinsically jeopardies. They went to mediation, and Jim was given a settlement of $600,000.
The court ruling was fair and designated that negligence had occurred by the institution and its
head trainer; Jim was given compensatory damages for his injuries sustained. It is lamentable
that the system did not take responsibility for their breach of the obligation of care in a public
way. The case underscores the fact that establishments as such are just corporations, and not all
personal trainers have the required skills or cognizance to be trusted by the average game patron.
However, the court ruling was fair and provided the plaintiff with the damages that he deserved.
IRAC #1
6
References
Vago, S. (2015). Law and society.Routledge.
Halliday, T. C. (2015). Transnational legal orders.Cambridge University Press.
Miller, R. L. (2016). Business Law Today, Comprehensive. Cengage learning.
I need three pages
Purchase answer to see full
attachment