I have never answered a legal question before in my life and need some help on how to start it.

The answer is supposed to be in a IRAC/ILAC approach. Tips and how to answer future questions is also appreciated.

Following is the factual scneario

On 10 April 2017 Jack and Melissa, a married couple, are at Fun Parks Adventureland with Melissa's brother Ken. Ken works for Fun Parks as a gardener keeping the parks grasslands and flowerbeds looking pristine for the park guests. Ken has been given 2 days off and 3 free passes for his hard work. He asked Jack and Melissa to join him for a day of 'fun and adventure' at Fun Parks Adventureland. Jack, Melissa and Ken meet at the park gates at 10am. Ken hands the cashier the 3 free passes and the cashier hands him their tickets and wishes them a good day. Behind the cashier on the wall and immediately after the entrance gate are signs outlining the Conditions of Entry (extracted below). The cashier does not draw these to customer's attention but the signs are clearly visible and each ticket refers the entrant to the Conditions of Entry stating 'the customer by accepting this ticket of entry accepts the Conditions of Entry to Fun Parks Adventureland'.

Jack, Melissa and Ken are having a great day, before lunch they have gone on 6 water rides and taken numerous photos with the park's entertainers including flamethrowers and artistic impressionists. At 2pm Melissa decided she wanted to go on the parks Super-Coaster, a new ride described to 'be the thrill of your life'. Jack and Ken are afraid of heights and decide to skip the ride but take a vantage point to watch Melissa enjoy the Super-Coaster. The ride takes off but halfway through the ride thrashing around the loops the harness locking system fails and Melissa, along with 5 other customers, fall to the ground. The ride is stopped immediately by the park attendant supervising the ride. Jack and Ken run towards Melissa and the 5 other customers that have been thrown free of the ride. Unfortunately, their injuries are so severe that all 6 customers, including Melissa, are unable to be saved. After inspection of the ride it is determined that the harness locking system was faulty and the pins which hold the harness system locked during movement of the ride were rusty from the Queensland sea air.

In the months following, Jack and Ken have trouble sleeping with Ken developing severe insomnia. They both experience nightmares reliving what they saw at the park on 10 April 2017. Jack and Ken have been seeing a trauma psychologist, taking sleeping medication and have been required to skip work on occasion due to lack of sleep. The anticipated cost to Jack and Ken is $8,000 and $15,000 respectively. After 2 months, Ken seeks assistance from medical professionals and is diagnosed with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). In addition, Ken has become introverted and refuses to leave the house. Due to this he has been sitting at home gambling online, losing $20,000 at online poker. He has also only been eating junk food and now has an insulin problem which requires expensive medication of $500/month.

Question -

Is Fun Parks Adventureland liable under negligence principles for the losses suffered by Ken?

Tips: In (brief) report format to Fun Parks Adventureland CEO, please:

1. Advise on a potential claim by Ken against Fun Parks Adventureland in negligence. Identify all possible negligence scenarios as they relate to Ken ONLY. You should consider all the elements required to bring a successful action in negligence. Do not discuss any defences to a negligence claim in this part of your Report.

2. Advise whether the Conditions of Entry negate liability. Use case law examples where possible to support your arguments and cite relevant section(s) of any legislation used.