Application of Law on Jasmine D'Loire's Business Essay

Application of Law on Jasmine DLoires Business - Essay frameworkOccupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984 To begin with, Jasmine is supposed to understand Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984 as this is applicable in her line of business. As stipulated in this act, this act shall consecrate effect on determining whether the resident of a premise, who in this case is Jasmine, are liable to whatever risk of suffering injury to early(a) persons other than their visitors, who in this case could be her students and workers, due to the state of the premise as a result of things done or omitted to be done on such premises (Harr 2008). However, it is important for Jasmine to understand the contents of this act and how the act affects her business. For example, she needs to know who the law recognizes as the occupier of a premise and how such an occupier of the premise owe a duty to others. According to this act, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being a visitor) in respe ct of any such risks as is referred above if she is aware of the peril or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exist (Hodge 2009). On the hand, Jasmine should be aware that, by integrity of this act, owes a duty to another to see that the students or workers dont suffer injury on her business premise by the reason of the danger caused. If such a risk happens, then she is liable (Schmalleger 2007). Health and safety at work act 1974 Although Jasmine is a sole proprietor, she might need many workers in her business therefore, she ought to be aware of the health and safety at work act 1974. The health and safety at work act 1974 was enacted to appoint further provisions for securing the health, and safety of workers, and for protecting other people from the risk to health and safety in connection with activities of workers (Schmalleger 2007). In regard to JDL Dance Ltd, the health and safety act would be applicable in connection to its workers and students. In some situations, by coincidence, an instructor (worker) in JDL Dance Ltd may cause defame during training (for example, break of an arm) to a student, due to negligence and lack of knowledge. In this case, the student may decide to sue the business owner for the harm caused. In this case, Jasmine may be answerable for having incompetent worker in her firm (Maguire 2007). On the other hand, a worker in the JDL Dance Ltd may by the way injure himself as a result of stepping on a slippery floor or on a broken pavement while on his duty. In this case the worker may sue JDL Dance Ltd, for failure to create a favourable working environment which caused the accident (Maguire 2007). Therefore, Jasmine is supposed to turn back that all the necessary equipments and the entire premise are safe for both her workers and students. In the health and safety at work act (1974), also stipulates that the yobs behavior constitute a breach of employers duty to care under the health and safety at work act (1974), wh ere employers are demand to have a legal obligation to ensure both physical and psychological well being of their employees (Maguire 2007). A breach of this act is considered to have happened when the employer fails to yield action when the employee brings a health and safety issue to their attention. When employees feel stressed while in their line of duty, this act interprets such a stress as consequence of the employer failure to