Law

In consideration of the given circumstances, the legal advice to be given to Lucky with regards to his cases against Whizzkid and Pota as claimant or plaintiff, as well as defendant against Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius are as follows

Relevant Legal Principles
The case with regards to Lucky Bstard, Whizzkid and Hari Potta and Luckys liability in respect of Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius all refer to the law of tort. The law of tort concerns civil matters of negligence considered wrong and civil action is undertaken by one citizen against another (Rogers, 2002). The word tort is derived from the Medieval Latin word tortum meaning injury.  Here, there are elements of negligence that may be applicable duty of care, breach of that duty, breach that caused harm(s) in fact, and the proximity of the consequences of the breach.

In the case of Heaven v Pender, the tort of negligence and reasonable acts of care in order not to injure or harm the neighbour are laid out Who, then, in law is my neighbour The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question, (Lord Atkin, 1932).

With regards to a contract or binding agreement between Lucky Bstard and Whizzkid and Harry Pota, there is binding principle between them as Bstard being a client or customer. The duty of care is thus applicable.  Lord Esher provided an understanding of the duty of care as, ...under certain circumstances, one man may owe a duty to another, even though there is no contract between them. If one man is near to another, or is near to the property of another that, if due care was not taken, damage might be done by the one to the other, (Block and Hostettler, 2002, p 68).

Negligence is a term used in legal systems applicable to tort cases that require monetary compensation for physical or mental injuries (Rogers, 2006). The injured persons Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius may recover damages to compensate for the harm done on them as caused by the event which Lucky promoted. The case, if proven legitimate, entitles the plaintiff for compensation on any harm to their body and mental well-being, financial status or even intimate relationships. Resulting damages, however, are necessarily proven in order to recover compensation (Rogers, 2006). In common law, the elements that need to be proven for negligence include duty, breach, causation and damages. Actual cause and proximate cause may also be required.

In the breach of duty, all applicable to Bstard with Whizzkid and Pota, as well as Bstard to Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius, it must be established that the defendants (for case of Bstard as plaintiff) must be aware of exposing Bstard to risk of losing his investment or money. As for Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius against Bstard, it should be proven that breach of duty on the ascent of Dan - Dans death being the central focus of the causation - has been committed by Bstard.

In the case of Bolton and Others v Stone (1951), Lord Thankerton declared, Bourhill v. Young 1943 A.C. 92 at p. 98, the duty is to exercise  such reasonable care as will avoid the risk of injury  to such persons as he can reasonably foresee might be injured by failure  to exercise such reasonable care , and Lord Macmillan used words to the like effect at p. 104. So, also, Lord Wright in Glasgow Corporation v. Muir 1943 A.C. 448 at p. 460, quoted the well-known words of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 A.C. 562 at p. 580 You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, (P 14).

In the case HELEN PALSGRAF, Respondent, v. The LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, the act of negligence was dismissed as the court noted that, Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right, and the conduct of the defendants guards, if a wrong in relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff standing many feet away, (The Historical Society of the Courts of New York, 2010, P 1). The defendants did not act nor omitted duty to cause harm on the appellant.

Appropriateness of legal authorities
Legal action and judges imposition is needed in the case of Lucky Bstard against Whizzkid and Harry Pota. Bstard is a victim of negligence by the financial advisors. Such can be drawn from the case Johnson v. John Hancock Funds, No. M2005-00356-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App., M.S., June 30, 2006) which the court of appeals stated, Securities are goods for the purposes of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and investment counselling and advice is likewise a service. Accordingly, offering securities for sale and providing investment counselling are consumer transactions. The Act explicitly proscribes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with consumer transactions (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-18-104(a), (b)(27). Following the Tennessee Supreme Courts reasoning in Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., we have determined that acts or practices in connection with the marketing or sale of securities are covered by the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the trial court erred by granting Signator Investors motion to dismiss. (Day, 2010, P 4).

In the said case, complainant Linda Johnson claimed that she received poor advice from financial advisor which consequently led to Johnsons loss of money.

Rogers (2006) cited the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman in 1990 of which duty of care was applied. As service providers, both Whizzkid and  Pota should have carefully studied the financial markets prior to providing an advice to Lucky Bstard about possible investment. Thus, a reasonably foreseeable result of their conduct was established. The second of the 3-fold test is the relationship between Lucky Bstard with Whizzkid and Harry Pota. As financial advisors, there is a relationship established between Bstard and Whizzkid, and another relationship between Bstard and Pota.

Lucky Bstards liability in respect of Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius, lies on the death of Dan Dangerous and the consequences of this death. Several consequences that harmed Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius are answerable by the same law of tort. This is another case of unintentional tort and may fall under negligence. There was negligence on the part of Lucky Bstard for allowing Dan Dangerous to take on the task of ascending into the air attached only to helium-filled toy balloons. The first thing that Lucky should have done is undertake a contract or a signed agreement with Dan freeing Lucky of obligation on some matters with regards to accident incurred during the event. Lawful obligation should have been stated on the contract such as how much compensation from Lucky is Dan allowed, third-party insurance for any possible accident, and other circumstantial possibilities such as possible fame for Dan, of which Lucky will not be part of.

Another obligation of Lucky prior to holding the charity event is in distributing tickets with agreement written on it against ticket buyers or spectators of the free ascension of Dan. A public announcement should also have been provided through television, radio and other forms of billboards that warn audience about the possible consequences of watching such a dangerous undertaking freeing the event organiser Lucky of any obligation should the watchers proceed to witness the event. The third obligation for Lucky should have been to sign a contract with all personnel involved in the event including Sam, the fireman, that all personnel are physically and mentally fit to witness such event. The contract should also have specified the limited obligation of Lucky that includes compensation for the day work.

Application of the law to the facts
Three stages of test to determine the duty of care applicable on the case of Bstard with regards to Whizzkid and Harry Poa as indicated in the Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) are as follows

If consequences of the defendants act were foreseeable as in the case of Kent v Griffins in 2000. It can be said that Whizzkid could have first checked the viability of an online company investment prior to giving advice to Bstard. The same can be said of Pota. Both advisors could have prevented the loss of Luckys invested money have they tried to consider the stability of financial securities.

If there is an established relationship or proximity between the parties whether it be legal or physical closeness such as the 1970 case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club. The proximity or relationship between Lucky and Whizzkid as well as Lucky and Pota are as client and service providers. Paid or not, the acceptance of the job as financial advisors make Pota and Whizzkid accept a relationship with Lucky.
The circumstances dictate justice and fairness attainable only through lawful imposition of duty such as the 1997 case of Capital v Hampshire County Council. Just and fair acts may be imposed on Pota and Whizzkid on Lucky Bstard as their client. The court of law is the only resort for this being a legal case of tort.

The case of Lucky Bstard against financial advisor Whizzkid and Harry Pota is that both financial advisors were likened to manufacturers selling good who should have the duty of care to ensure that the goods being sold - that is securities investment - should have been carefully checked and double-checked so as not to harm the buyer which in this instance is Lucky.

When it comes to the case of Lucky against Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius, duty of care and relationship or proximity must be established. Where there is a possibility of a contract between Lucky and Dan Dangerous indemnifying possible liabilities of Lucky with regards to the ascent as Dans wilful acceptance of the task or participation in the and not as a paid work or obligation, there is a high probability that Lucky will be spared of any damages. As in the case of Bolton v Stone 1951 AC 850, 1951 1 All ER 1078, defendant was seen to have not any reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct by hitting a cricket ball. By promoting the ascent, Lucky may have been contracted by the event organisers to promote the ascent and that Lucky may not directly be involved in the process.

Careful consideration of the processes prior to the accident should be examined. The questions that need t be answered include
Was there any contract between Lucky and the organisers of the event or ascent of Dan Dangerous What are the specifications
Was there a contract between Dan and the organizers
In consideration of any contract as mentioned above, was it established that Lucky Bstard and Dan Dangerous are directly linked

Clarity and cogency of argument
The argument of Lucky Bstard against his financial advisors Whizzkid and Harry Pota will encompass the declaration of Lord Esher that, under certain circumstances, one man may owe a duty to another, even though there is no contract between them. If one man is near to another, or is near to the property of another that, if due care was not taken, damage might be done by the one to the other.

Financial loss are the damages done to Lucky by the negligence of Whizzkid and Harry Pota in providing financial advice to Lucky. As advisors, both are burdened with the duty of care, being in proximity or relations as client to service provider. The advisors, too are burdened with the duty to check reasonably foreseeable consequences or harm.

As for Luckys probable defence against Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, Beryl and Julius, he must establish his being a promoter as a professional with contracts to all his partners or associates including Dan Dangerous. In the case where accident insurance was not acquired for Dan for the said event, there is lack of contract or that the contract failed to specify the limitation of Luckys obligation, he will be liable for possible damages for Dan or Dans family. Here, a particular act or omission such as the failure of Lucky to check whether the site of the extravaganza was on any flight path is applicable. Hence he was imposed to pay the estate of Dan.

Insufficient warning or agreement, too, may lead to additional compensation against Lucky in the defence against Minnie, Prodnose, and Sam. While Lucky may argue for the applicability of reasonably foreseeable consequences or harm, it is likely that lack of warning and written agreement will have the case turned against Lucky. The presence of Minnie as audience, Sam as fireman, and Beryl as Dans mother are considered relationships and applicable in the case of negligence and breach of the duty of care. Prodnose, however, as a distant viewer, may not necessarily be directly linked, thereby losing proximity with the defendant Lucky. It was not clear, too, what the role of Dans father Julius identifying the corpse of Dan would be since Lucky accepted to compensate the estate of Dan. It was not clear how Julius had been harmed in the process of identifying the dead body of his son, except as Dans close relative and heir to Dans estate.

Conclusion
Lucky Bstard has acted properly by compensating the estate of Dan Dangerous. He may file a case of tort against Whizzkid and Harry Pota for breach of duty of care as financial advisors that caused him loss of a lump sum of monies. As for Minnie, Prodnose, Sam, and Beryl, a case may be filed against Bstard by the said individuals in consideration of breach of duty of care on the part of Lucky. Lucky may use in the argument the elements of reasonably unforeseeable harm done as well as lack of proximity or relationship between Lucky and the said individuals or probable appellants. As members of the audience who may have bought a ticket with written warnings or agreements, it is highly probable that sufficient information were provided to the audience and workers with regards to the event as heat-stopping, it being extravagant and adventurous in nature. In addition, being a former fianc does not impose any relationship between Minnie and Dan as the question of proximity is in the present.

Sufficient contracts and publicised warnings may add up on the defence of Lucky if these are present. Court examination and decision, however, my not ensure that Lucky Bstard is fortunate enough as elements and details need to be properly considered and legal basis interpreted.