Tort Law - Negligent misstatement vs Negligent act - Wk8:Station 4

[zhanghenry]

Cathy is the owner of Indoor Soccer P/L, an indoor soccer sporting complex. Lately, she has become very concerned about getting sued. She made an appointment with Michael (her legal practitioner) to discuss these concerns. Michael asked Cathy about her business and what safety equipment and signage she has displayed in the sporting centre. Cathy told Michael that she did not have any signs in her sporting club because it is obvious that indoor soccer is dangerous. Cathy also said she has the safety equipment as recommended by the Indoor Soccer Association. She decided because of cost reasons not to buy additional safety helmets and eye glasses for each of the players, rather, the players can hire these for an extra $10 per session. Cathy said very few players choose to take up this offer. The next day, Julia and James decide to go and play a game of indoor soccer at Indoor Soccer Ltd. Julia decides to hire the additional safety equipment, but James does not. During play James was struck in the eye by the soccer ball. Preliminary tests have indicated that James may end up being blind in his right eye. This is unfortunate as James already had impaired vision in his left eye. Can you explain that case above, please. Thanks!