Bush fire victims Vs. SP AusNet – Civil law The survivors of the horrific Black Saturday fires, are suing the power company SP AusNet claiming its faulty equipment caused the disasters which lead to the death of 173 people. The lead plaintiff Ms Carol Matthews and an estimated 10,000 victims and relatives of the deceased, took the defendant SP AusNet to court for 500 million dollars in damages and personal distress. On the 7th of February 2009, a section of power lines located at Kilmore East broke and upon striking the ground, ignited a bushfire. The case came about after the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission found the Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire was caused by an ageing SP AusNet power line. The class action took place at the start …show more content…
of March 2013 in the Melbourne Supreme Court and ran for more than 200 sitting days, in a new $4 million state of the art courtroom. It was purpose built to accommodate dozens of lawyers and barristers as well as more than 30 expert witnesses. The plaintiff was represented by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, and was asking for $500 million in compensation for over 5000 victims of the Black Friday bushfires. The claim has focused on alleged negligence by SP AusNet in its management of electricity infrastructure. It maintains most of the power lines in eastern Victoria. Its fallen power line is believed to have sparked the blaze that tore through Kinglake, Steels Creek, Strathewen, Humevale, and St Andrews. The plaintiffs include thousands of angry Kinglake farmers, small business owners, tourist operators and residents who lost homes. The case against SP AusNet was a civil case involving 2 parties, trying to get compensation for damages. While a case, death was the result of the actions of SP AusNet which is why the case took place at the Melbourne Supreme Court instead of the Magistrate court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court falls into two categories, matters in which it exercises original jurisdiction, meaning that a matter comes before the court for decision for the first time. The second category is a matter in which it has an appellate jurisdiction, in its appellate jurisdiction the court determines appeals from single judges, from the Magistrates Court and from tribunals, where there is a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. The law suit that took place was a Civil law case, which means there was a dispute between two parties, in this case it was the victims of the bush fire and SP AusNet, the dispute was over the negligence of SP AusNet and its resulting actions. SP AusNet committed civil wrong, a tort, the company had a duty of care to maintain and check the power line, failing to do so, they are negligent and have also create a nuisance to the public. The plaintiff won the case as SP AusNet was technically proven to be negligent according to WRONGS ACT 1958 - SECT 51, SP AusNet agreed to settle as the case at hand was much harder than anticipated.
SP AusNet's position during the trial, was that the conductor which broke and which initiated the fire was damaged by lightning, compromising its fail-safety design in a manner which was undetectable at the time. Evidence was brought to court from the CFA and the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. A test power line was set up to simulate the situation, where the conductor was broken and did not initiate a fire, however SP AusNet dismissed this evidence in the court, as the test was set up on private property without consent of the …show more content…
owners. SP AusNet was taken to court for damages and personal distress of the victims involved in the black Friday bush fire. The resulting action was taken which lead to the settlement of close to $500 million dollars. SP AusNet has agreed to pay $378.6 million, while Utility Services Corporation Ltd will pay $12.5 million. The State Government will contribute $103.6 million for compensation in respect of personal injury and dependency claims. The compensation was split between over 5000 victims of the black Saturday bush fire, the plaintiff layers Maurice Blackburn layers received $16 million in lawyers’ fees. The outcome of the trial fulfilled the purpose of the law, as victims and family of the victims were compensated for their loss as the result of negligent of one company’s mistake and wrong doing. The outcome of the case fulfilled the purpose of the law as SP AusNet had clearly violated the civil law by putting the general public at risk. References ABC News,. 'Black Saturday Survivors Win $500 Million Payout'. N.p., 2014. Abc.net.au,. 'Bushfire Survivors Demand Justice In Record Civil Case'. N.p., 2015. Austlii.edu.au,. 'Matthews V Ausnet Electricity Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] VSC 663 (23 December 2014)'. N.p., 2015. HeraldSun,. 'Black Saturday $495M Compensation Payout Approved'. N.p., 2014.. Marshall Vs. The state of Western Australia – Criminal law In late October 2013 the defendant Mr Christopher Marshall pleaded not guilty to the sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment for Manslaughter of Mr Quentin Cornwall, against the State of Western Australia. Prior to the incident, Mr Marshall has committed a number of different offences including three offences of burglary, four offences of reckless driving. Mr Marshall also had a history of violence, this all occurred after Mr Marshall was in a car accident where he had a sustained brain damage and suffers from a neurocognitive impairment. On the night of the 24th of January 2013, Mr Marshall was celebrating a birthday with his girlfriend and two other friends in his unit, where a loud argument was taking place in a neighbouring unit. Mr Marshall with down the door to investigate and clam the situation down, the deceased and two friends were confronting a unit owner regarding a prior disagreement. Mr Marshall was intoxicated and the deceased was heavily intoxicated reading a blood alcohol reading of 0.318. The situation soon got out of hand, where Marshall retreated back to his unit, the heavily intoxicated males left to a nearby garbage storage area and returned with wooden legs from an old chair. Mr Cornwall (the deceased) tried to break into Mr Marshall property and said “Do you want to smash? This is where Mr Marshall contacted the police. Mr Cornwall attacked Mr Marshall, where he was able to retrieve a golf club for self-defence, the golf club snapped as a result Mr Marshall used the remains as sphere and stab Mr Cornwall In the back five times. Mr Marshall was trailed for the manslaughter of Mr Cornwall by the State Of Western Australia, the case an appeal against sentence where Mr Marshall pleaded not guilty on the grounds that the death was the result of excessive use of force in self-defence. This was looked into, as all gentlemen were intoxicated and Mr Marshall had a serious history with crime and violence. The court had substantial evidence on Mr Marshall, including DNA and finger prints on both the victim and the weapon along with eye witnesses. The trial of Mr Christopher Marshall was heard at the Western Australia Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction of serious matters, usually relating to murder and attempted murder. Their official power to make legal decisions can then determine what is to happen to the people who have committed these charges. In this case the jurisdiction of Mr Marshall’s offensive is jail time. While the crime Mr Marshall committed is considered the results of self-defence, Mr Marshall committed a crime of manslaughter the unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation.
Manslaughter and any other form of murder are understood to be a criminal crime. This case is a criminal case a there is no dispute between two parties, but a crime where was committed such as killing someone, as a result Mr Marshall violated the common laws of Australia and the crime has been classified as a criminal
offence. The outcome of the case was that the judge sentenced Mr Marshall, to 7 years and 6 months a reduced sentence imprisonment without the possibility of parole, for his action of excessive self-defence that lead to manslaughter. Mr Marshall was proven guilty with the evidence of the murder weapon, DNA and finger prints at the scene of the location. Mr Marshall’s lawyer appealed to drop the charges on the bases, that Mr Marshall was not in his right mind when the attack took place that he suffered from neurocognitive impairment. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that Mr Marshall had prior convictions of violence, and seemed well fit to maintain life in prison. The outcome of the case saw Mr Marshall sentenced to a short sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment. Mr Marshall broke the law and committed manslaughter according to ‘CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 3A A Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence.’ The punishment for this crime is usually life in prison (25 years). While Mr Marshall is sentenced to prison, the punishment has not fulfilled the purpose of the law, the law is that if someone commits a crime of murder they are removed from the public and placed in a life time imprisonment (25 years). Although Mr Marshall’s punishment was reduced, it hard to tell whether or not Mr Marshall will commit similar crimes when he is released. References Au.news.yahoo.com,. 'Trial Set For Alleged Withers' Killer'. N.p., 2015. Austlii.edu.au,. 'MARSHALL -V- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2015] WASCA 156 (10 August 2015)'. N.p., 2015.
Case, Adeels Palace v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 entails a defendant, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd and two plaintiffs, Anthony Moubarak and Antoin Fayez Bou Najem. On New Year’s Eve 2002, a function, hosted by Adeels was open to members of the public, with a charged admission fee. A dispute broke out in the restaurant. One man left the premises and later returned with a firearm. He seriously injured both respondents. One was shot in the leg and other in the stomach. The plaintiffs separately brought proceedings against the defendant in the District Court of New South Wales (NSW), claiming damages for negligence. The trial judge issued Bou Najem $170,000 and Moubarak $1,026,682.98. It was held that the duty of care was breached by the defendant as they ‘negligently’ failed to employ security for their function. The breach of duty and resulted in the plaintiff’s serious injuries.
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
In their defense Pittston made attempts to distort the truth. They tried to separate themselves from the Buffalo Coal Company the subsidiary company which operated the failed dam. Pittston had the equity to compensate the plaintiffs while the Buffalo Coal Company was not valued high enough to give victims compensation. The lawyers from Arnold & Porter chose to sue the parent company because it was necessary to reach an adequate settlement. Psychic-impairment was used by the plaintiffs because it would give them the most compensation, and made up for the maximum amount state law allowed.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire not only affected the city of New York, but also the rest of the country. It forever changed the way our country would look at safety regulations in factories and buildings. The fire proved to America what can and will happen if we over-look safety regulations and over-crowd buildings. Unfortunately, 146 lives are taken before we fully understand this concept.
In West Warwick Rhode Island, on February 20th, 2003, during the performance of the band Great White, a fire broke out that eventually claimed the lives of 100 people and injured an additional 200. The band’s tour manager arranged for, and ignited pyrotechnic props, large fireworks designed to display a shower of sparks. The sparks ignited foam soundproofing near stage. The fire spread quickly. Most were killed either in the crush to exit the building or overcome by fumes while trying to find an exit. The immediate cause was well documented due to witness reports and a videotape that was taken during the concert. In the period that followed the tragedy there were many attempts to fix blame. Following a Grand Jury investigation, several of the parties involved plead guilty to violations of the law and served or are currently sentences in prison.
On the fateful and unforgettable afternoon of June 17, 1972 Hotel Vendome experienced yet another fire. Actually it experienced several fires in different locations on this date. Electricians working on the first floor reported smoke coming from the upper floors, and a bartender reported smoke in the basement. All occupants in the basement café were safely escorted out, and 3 engine companies, 2 ladder companies, and 1 District Chief arrived on scene noticing ...
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
The drought was near historic high levels for the time of year. In the moments before the entrapment on of the squads and the crew boss trainee were working with a fire engine and its three person crew when a spot fire erupted right next to the road. The seven Northwest Regular Crew number six and a engine crew got in there vehicles and drove south past the fire along the edge of the road. While driving they radioed the other 14 crewmembers who were working north further up the river about the dangerous situation. The 14 crewmembers and the incident commander and two Northwest Regular number six squad members were suppressing spot fires between the river and the road ¼ mile north of the first squad when they were informed of the situation that was threatening there es...
The business and political atmosphere during this time was very corrupt. No one was really interested in the safety of their workers they were more focused on making more money. Precautions that would be used to prevent fires such as fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, or even working water hoses were not available. In the case of a fire it was nothing that could really be done. Triangle Factory owners, Max Blanck and Isaac Haris, had a history with their factories catching fire. Blanck and Haris would purposely set their businesses on fire so they could collect large insurance policies, which is one of the reasons why they did not install a sprinkler system. They needed something to help them just in case they were to burn down another
In the case of Michael Buckley, it seemed to be a difficult situation to remedy; however, it would seem that clearly Buckley had experienced a situation of exposure. The exposure was evident, Mr. Buckley’s body covered in a substance known to cause illness and death, e.g., Cancer (Montgomery, 1998) . Nevertheless, Buckley did not seek any help in understanding his situation therefor, he did not show signs of a traumatic experience. Buckley would later file suit under the direction of federal employer liability act (FELA) (Montgomery, 1998; Twomey, Jennings, & Anderson, 2011). The lawsuit was based primarily on the belief that Mr. Buckley had indeed encountered a traumatic episode that rendered Buckley emotionally distressed. However, according to the readings, Buckley did experience and exposure to a harmful substance, e.g. asbestos it would be difficult under the terms of the law to prove he experienced a traumatic event being that Buckley refuses any assistance from the psychiatrist or medical personnel determine his State of mind at that time. Still under the law as it's reviewed by the second court Buckley had only to express concern as stated in the court preceding e.g., Metro – North Transit Inspector General, Supervisor,
Power lines, Lighting, machinery and Arsonist are confirmed causes of the Black Saturday Bushfires. The drought, the hot temperatures, strong winds and the other factors are said to be the cause of the black Saturday bushfires
Common law and modern state statutes typically divide manslaughter and murder into two different levels of crime. Common law, for instance, separates manslaughter into two separate categories. The first category would be voluntary manslaughter and the second category would be involuntary manslaughter. Manslaughter, alone, is all homicides without justification or excuse. Modern state statues, in the other hand, divide murder into first- and second-degree murder, both of which require the prosecutor to establish intent and malice. Murder, alone, is all homicides that are neither excused nor justified.
...needs to look out for the business owners. Business people also need to understand that the cost to install a fire sprinkler system is nowhere compare to a devastation of a big fire. Some people can never learn anything without making mistakes first. If tragedy happens again, business owners will truly appreciate the act and the system.
In January 2005, a fire in a Bronx apartment building caused six firefighters to jump from the fourth floor in attempt to escape the fire, which left four injured and two dead. Their lives were put at risk due to mistakes and unfamiliarity with equipment. Due lack of knowledge on hydraulics and sufficient water
Arson is one of the oldest crimes recognized throughout the world. It is defined as the intentional and malicious burning of a structure or building (Montaldo). Arson can cost the lives of individuals and the damages can be costly. In 2010, there were about 260,600 fires (“Arson and Intentional Fires,” n.d.). Many of these fires were intentionally set. These fires have resulted in an estimated 390 deaths, 1,340 injuries, and $1.2 billion in damages (“Arson and Intentional Fires,” n.d.). Most of the fires have occurred outside, but most of the deaths, injuries, and losses occurred in structures, particularly in homes (“Arson and Intentional Fires,” n.d.). Arson is considered to be a property crime to law enforcement agencies, despite that the fires created by the arsonist can injure and kill many people. This paper will discuss the history of arson as well as explaining why arson is difficult to prove, why people commit it, and also provides specific case examples and suggestions on what people can do to reduce the risk of arson.