Skip to content
RMIT University Library - Learning Lab

Integrating a legal argument


To develop an integrated legal argument, you need to link your arguments together. This is done through connectors. They can be used at the beginning of sentences, in the middle of sentences or to link ideas between paragraphs.

Click the activity tab; test your knowledge. To complete, click the arrow in the top right hand corner of the box and select select the missing word.


Choose the correct words or phrases from the drop down menus to complete the text.

The standard of care owed by GCS is that of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent occupier who takes reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risks of harm to entrants (not just shoppers) of the premises. Bolton v Stone [1951] 1 All ER 1078 ’s Case. , no information was given as to the standards usually required of store owners or whether GCS has complied with the retail industry’s general standards of practice. However, it is reasonably foreseeable that harm could occur: allowing too many people to climb the stairs at the same time could very likely cause serious injuries, especially when people started pushing against each other. , GCS should have foreseen (as it had intended to do) that an opening sale would attract a huge crowd to the store. , we have no information to support whether or not the stairs would collapse when too many people were stepping on it. such an accident could have been avoided if GCS had simply made an announcement using the public address system or by putting up signs reminding shoppers not to rush up the stairs. , GCS could have hired extra staff to control the customer flow at the stairs. Given the likelihood of serious harm to the stair users, it would have been reasonable for ordinary and prudent store owners to perform the above precautions. GCS omitted these precautions, failed to warn Bert and other shoppers and, , caused Bert extensive injuries. GCS has breached its duty of care to Bert.