Considering the legal environment surrounding businesses, owners have to ensure that they minimize the
legal risks that are hovering their businesses. Similarly, paintball businesses are prone to a variation of
laws including torts that they need to reflect upon when starting up.
The torts of Occupier’s Liability create a standard of care for lawful users which ensures safety of
premises. Wei and Anayat will rent the abandoned warehouse, which makes them the occupier and thus
liable for the safety of any person injured within the property e.g. slip and fall, as well as, the physical
condition of the warehouse. If however, they fail to exercise enough safety measures or get sued falsely,
they can manage the risk by having insurance against occupier’s liability, by installing video cameras to
protect against false claims (pre-meditated slip and fall), and by having and following reasonable policies
and procedures to deal with preventative safety.
If a paintball injury is caused by a defective or dangerous product (a defective paintball gun or mask), a
customer might bring forth a product liability claim against Wei and Anayat. For example, the tort of
Negligent Design may apply resulting in the breach of the standard of care. This design defect is far more
detrimental than a manufacturing process defect, since it affects all the users. To minimize the risks of
product liability torts, Wei and Anayat should exercise the Duty to Warn by clearly communicating a
warning of impending danger, if aware. If not, they should prove ‘causation’ by their suppliers of guns
and ammunition or prove contributory negligence on behalf of users.
In a negligence claim, the plaintiff (the person suing) argues that his or her injuries were caused by the
unreasonable carelessness of the defendant (the person being sued). If the customer is able to prove that
the paintball injury was caused by another person's negligence and failure to follow ‘the standard of care’
(for example, failure of the paintball facility to provide the customer with protective gear), the customer
may succeed in his claim. As participating in paintball games carries some degree of risk, Wei and
Anayat may raise the "voluntary assumption of risk" defense- They argue that the customer is not entitled
to compensation because he consented to the risk of injury.
A customer may sue Wei and Anayat if the paintball injury was the result of another player's intentional
act rather than an accident, under the intentional tort of assault or battery. To manage this suit, Wei and
Anayat can use Consent as a defense by proving that the injured party agreed to the possibility of being
hurt. If successful, they would not be held legally responsible for injuries caused by the paintball activity.
The intentional tort of trespass to land occur