QUESTION

Kendrick Lamar is an engineer who was hired by Jennifer Lopez to assess the stage safety and capacity at the National Stadium XYZ. She was hoping to have her concert there and was awaiting a full report from Kendrick. If the results are unfavorable, she made it clear to Kendrick, that she will have the concert at ABC Stadium. In addition, she informed him to go thorough the report as she does not want to take any chances. Kendrick is fully aware of his responsibilities and consented to this express clarification by Jennifer Lopez. Two days later, a report was furnished highlighting: "the stadium was at 95 % safe for use, due to the old wear and tear that aren't necessarily serious". Upon receiving the report, she consulted Kendrick again, and asked his opinion. He expressly assured her the stadium is fit for purpose. On the day of the concert, Jennifer Lopez welcomed 80,000 spectators and everything was smooth sailing.

All of a sudden, during the show, the central portion of the audiences platform crumples, bringing down thousands of people. A video of the tragic event, capturing the exact moment of the collapse, where thousands of enthusiastic fans were injured went viral. No deaths were reported but more than half were diagnosed with severe injury. The case was investigated, and it was found that an equipment under the central stage was carelessly left and the base of the whole stage was in fact exposed to fretting corrosion for years. In lieu of this, the equipment left had slipped causing the central base of the stage to crack.

Kendrick Lamar is now undergoing trial under a professional negligence suit.

Identify and justify your arguments in favour of your client, Jennifer Lopez (Plaintiff) or Kendrick Lamar (Defendant).

Study the scenario based on the following:

1) If there is a valid professional negligence suit

2) If there is any defences available

3) If there are suitable remedies

could you please explain me damage( In determining the damages, the court would enquire as to the chain of causation i.e. is there a link between the breach and the damages suffered by the Plaintiff. (Reasonable Foresight test) (TWO) 2 Principles of this test include: 1. The damage must be foreseeable as a consequence of the Defendant's conduct 2. The type of damage must be foreseeable )

if i am in favour of Jennifer. Can you please tell me arguments under "damage"?