Question 1: The first thing to do is establish a duty of care. Negligence claims can be brought against people who owe you a duty of care. It then depends on who BMP or WWE owed a duty of care to before the incident occurred. . The evidence of their negligence that made them liable was documentation stating that they cut corners in fire safety equipment to save costs. This was declared "necessary" due to the lack of revenue from the mine. In the case Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones, Jones sued the port authority for negligence when the fire destroyed his products. The Burnie Port Authority stepped in to initiate the proposed second development plan. General Jones had three fresh rooms worth of frozen vegetables of his own, which were stored on the first floor of the Port Authorities development. No main contractor has been appointed for the construction of the second phase. This led to improper stage two maintenance which caused the fire when welding sparks caught stored flammable insulation. The flame continued to the original first phase of development which included the destruction of the three cool rooms belonging to General Jones. This case represents how BMP could be held negligently liable to someone who comes after them for damages caused. The main reason for this is the reduction of safety equipment in one section of the mine, making them vulnerable to any fire-related issues that could potentially occur. The fact that the fire broke out causing the mine to burn down and... half of the paper... also marries with the inscriptions, and they knew about it made them susceptible to any injuries that would happen . The final appeal was successful and the council lost the case in the high court. Management responseHow to deal with tort situations" it is well established jurisprudence that the principal can incur liability both for illicit acts of an independent contractor directly authorized by him, and for failure to coordinate the activities of independent contractors or for violation of specific duties as an occupier , however, rejected that Leighton had a duty to Fox to take reasonable care to prevent it from suffering injury on the site as a result of Stewart's negligent conduct via knock-on effect. Talk about each damage and who it can claim from what resource.