Procurement Case Study Scenario

[dragatar24]

Mr Carnell [known to his friends as “Mr Know It All” and to the people who work under him as “Mr Do It Or Else You Are Fired”] was in charge of a gang of work people who were repairing a parapet to a bridge. The bridge carries traffic which has a varying number of lanes closed off at various times to permit the bridge repair work to take place.
Mr. Carnell was told by his senior management that he must push the performance of his gang to the maximum to pull back the earlier delays that were caused by the late supply of the design information about how the new concrete parapet is fixed to the existing bridge. He is told that this will prevent his company having to pay a penalty of £2,000.00 per day for delay [which his senior manager referred to as liquidated damages].
Mr Carnell with his senior managements blessing put in place the following measures to accelerate the works.
1. He employed extra people to work on the restricted site. One of these people is Gretel Lumpman. Gretel is a cheap inexperienced 18 year old lady from Allestree village who Mr Carnell was pleased to see was good with a sledge hammer.
2. He orders a significant amount of additional mechanical plant to work on the restricted site that work alongside his gang of operatives carrying out the works.
3. As the works progress he makes a final push to pull back lost time by ordering every member of his gang to work 15 hour shifts 7 days a week. This is a desperate attempt to pull back time and avoid the £2,000.00 per day delay penalty. This acceleration measure causes a significant amount of the work to be carried out during the hours of darkness.
One day at 1.00am in the morning Gretel was knocked over by a lorry which drove off. The driver and vehicle were never identified. She is killed but miraculously Mr Carnell notes her sledge hammer is unharmed. During the later investigations a number of breaches of the codes that govern temporary fencing, bollards, closing off lanes, lighting and provision of road signs are noted.
Mr Carnell is comfortable he is not to blame because the shortcomings identified did not change the fact that Gretel was a danger to herself because she wandered around in a tired stupor half the night that she was knocked down and killed. It did not surprise him when she bent down to pick up a bag of cement and her sledge hammer her bottom protruded a few inches into the live traffic lane which was then struck by the lorry. In Mr Carnell’s mind it was Gretel’s own fault she got clipped by the lorry because in all probability the driver didn’t see her because she was not wearing her high visibility vest (another stupid thing Mr Carnell had noticed she was doing on a regular basis).
Question
1. Explain what must be proved in order to demonstrate liability in the tort of negligence? (10 marks)
2. Explain what is vicarious liability? (5 marks)
3. Analyse the scenarios facts and determine whether Mr Carnell and/or his employer would be held liable in the tort of negligence for the death of Gretel Lumpman? (10 Marks)
Question
Mr Carnell and his employers are denying liability for the death of Gretel Lumpman. Reason why both Mr Carnell and his employers are both likely to be held liable in the tort of negligence for the death of Gretel Lumpman.

[scorpiojo]

What do you have so far?

[baza]

Need more info, how tall was Gretel, how wide was the lane she was bending in, who found the body?

[scorpiojo]

..does Mr Carnell have an alibi?

[SirOracle]

Only hope there is no "Carnell" knowledge here,in addition to all his other transgressions. !!

[baza]

Was Gretel good with other "tools"

[atalanta]

This scenario doesn't hold water. You can't order workers to work 15 hr shifts for 7 days a week. Either the unions would bring everyone out on strike, which would make things far worse, or workers would go off claiming to be ill ( probably justifiably) or between them they'd consult a lawyer who would tell them the boss is in breach of the law.