Beverley Kite Flyers Corporation (BKFC) v Ming-Lee
1. Does the BKFC owe a duty to prevent physical injuries of a concussion, a broken arm and serious leg injuries leading to a leg amputation, to Ming-Lee?
To establish physical injury, it must be reasonably foreseeable the BKFC’s omission in failing to cancel the event, despite weather warnings and advise from their legal advisor, led to Ming-Lee’s physical injuries. While it is arguable the Japanese kite flyers released their kites, causing them to crash onto Ming-Lee, this is an intervening act as it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the BKFC’s omission, thus it does not cut off BKFC’s liability. It is necessary to consider “salient factors” as reasonable foreseeability of harm may be inadequate. As the organisors of the festival, the BKFC had control over Ming-Lee and others at the event who would have reasonably relied on them to cancel the event in severe weather conditions. Additionally, as a young child would not have the capacity to protect herself against the weather, vulnerability is also present. Further, as the BKFC was aware of the weather conditions, it is clear they had knowledge the event could cause harm. Therefore, it is highly likely they owed a duty to Ming-Lee when examining reasonable foreseeability and …show more content…
Does the BKFC owe a duty to prevent consequential psychiatric harm of panic attacks and fears to Ming-Lee?
In order to prove psychiatric harm, it is necessary to establish that a reasonable child in Ming-Lee’s position would develop panic attacks and fears as a result of the BKFC’s omission.
As her panic attacks and fears to leave the house resulted from her physical injuries, it is consequential mental harm, thus duty is owed on the basis of the original physical injury. Hence as duty was most likely owed by the BKFC to Ming-Lee to prevent physical injury, it follows that duty was also owed to prevent consequential psychiatric harm, as this is a reasonable