Chris Fandango
Junior Member
Hi,
I'm chris, a first year student studying civil engineering in the UK. We have to undertake a module which is called legal studies and to be honest, I'm struggling with the work. We have been given an assignment with three seperate senario cases and i don't know where to start. I would be grateful if you could give me some pointers. The cases are as follows:
Background
The scenario for this assignment has been based upon the episode involving the crane crashing in to the bridge on the A19 as discussed previously in class and presented on the Blackboard site.
The precise assignment scenario is as follows:
A crane has crashed into the bridge at the above location. The damage to the bridge is currently being repaired by Bishop Builders. The project sponsors are the local authority, Middleton Borough Council and they are expecting completion of the works by the end of the summer period. To help ensure this completion date is met the Highways Department of the local authority have insisted Bishop’s construction work is closely monitored and inspected by them as work progresses (Mr Bradburn is the Highways Department’s Project Manager). Also, in order to secure excellent working conditions for the constructors they have taken the unusual step of closing down the A19 to vehicular and pedestrian access unless they are required as part of the construction project. The local authority is responsible for placing suitable directional and warning signage to indicate this.
On the 1st March 2006 Bishop’s operatives completed a number of small local concrete repairs to the soffit of the bridge. A series of events occurred after the site closed for the evening.
A series of unfortunate events
Event 1
Here a piece of concrete that had been used to repair the bridge fell and landed on the A19. This part of the works was completed just before the site closed and so was not inspected by the Highways Department. Luckily nobody was injured and the road surface was undamaged.
Event 2
Just a short time after event 1 an adjacent concrete repair fell to the ground. This time the lump of concrete fell and narrowly missed a duck that was resting on the A19 road surface. A mother and a young child witnessed the event and, because the young child believed the duck would be harmed by the concrete, he became hysterical. The local radio have interviewed the mother and she has indicated she wishes to sue the Highway’s Department for the distress caused to her son.
This part of the works was completed at lunchtime and inspected soon afterwards by the local authority. The repair appeared to be satisfactory at the time of the inspection.
Event 3
Late at night yet another concrete repair fell. This time however it landed in front of a car as it was travelling along the A19 forcing the driver to swerve and skid into the central reservation. The owner of the car, Mr Lucking, the father of the young child mentioned in Event 2, claims that there was no signage indicating that he was forbidden from joining the A19 near to the bridge. He has asserted, in the strongest terms, that he intends to sue the Highways Department to pay for the damage and associated costs to have his car repaired. He also intends to sue for loss of income as he is a self employed taxi driver.
Many thanksWhat is the name of your state?
I'm chris, a first year student studying civil engineering in the UK. We have to undertake a module which is called legal studies and to be honest, I'm struggling with the work. We have been given an assignment with three seperate senario cases and i don't know where to start. I would be grateful if you could give me some pointers. The cases are as follows:
Background
The scenario for this assignment has been based upon the episode involving the crane crashing in to the bridge on the A19 as discussed previously in class and presented on the Blackboard site.
The precise assignment scenario is as follows:
A crane has crashed into the bridge at the above location. The damage to the bridge is currently being repaired by Bishop Builders. The project sponsors are the local authority, Middleton Borough Council and they are expecting completion of the works by the end of the summer period. To help ensure this completion date is met the Highways Department of the local authority have insisted Bishop’s construction work is closely monitored and inspected by them as work progresses (Mr Bradburn is the Highways Department’s Project Manager). Also, in order to secure excellent working conditions for the constructors they have taken the unusual step of closing down the A19 to vehicular and pedestrian access unless they are required as part of the construction project. The local authority is responsible for placing suitable directional and warning signage to indicate this.
On the 1st March 2006 Bishop’s operatives completed a number of small local concrete repairs to the soffit of the bridge. A series of events occurred after the site closed for the evening.
A series of unfortunate events
Event 1
Here a piece of concrete that had been used to repair the bridge fell and landed on the A19. This part of the works was completed just before the site closed and so was not inspected by the Highways Department. Luckily nobody was injured and the road surface was undamaged.
Event 2
Just a short time after event 1 an adjacent concrete repair fell to the ground. This time the lump of concrete fell and narrowly missed a duck that was resting on the A19 road surface. A mother and a young child witnessed the event and, because the young child believed the duck would be harmed by the concrete, he became hysterical. The local radio have interviewed the mother and she has indicated she wishes to sue the Highway’s Department for the distress caused to her son.
This part of the works was completed at lunchtime and inspected soon afterwards by the local authority. The repair appeared to be satisfactory at the time of the inspection.
Event 3
Late at night yet another concrete repair fell. This time however it landed in front of a car as it was travelling along the A19 forcing the driver to swerve and skid into the central reservation. The owner of the car, Mr Lucking, the father of the young child mentioned in Event 2, claims that there was no signage indicating that he was forbidden from joining the A19 near to the bridge. He has asserted, in the strongest terms, that he intends to sue the Highways Department to pay for the damage and associated costs to have his car repaired. He also intends to sue for loss of income as he is a self employed taxi driver.
Many thanksWhat is the name of your state?