Chosen case: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)
Reported through November’96, Wallis Lake and surrounding areas of the New South Wales experienced heavy rainfall that risked outspread of viral contamination of Hepatitis A in the Oysters which were cultivated in the same lake. Due to this contamination, many consumers ended up being the victim of the viral. The case was brought to trialin the Australian Federal Court.(High Court of Australia, 2002)
The case was instituted by Grant Ryan as a demonstrative action in the Court against Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd, the Great Lakes Council and the State of NSW for negligence that caused illness to Ryan and others from eating Oysters from the Wallis Lake.(High Court of Australia, 2002)
…show more content…
The accuseropposed the State was obliged towards accuser a duty of care sinceit knew about risks of damage to the people around, had the control under specific legislaturein taking steps to minimize risks at an earlier stage, or at least must guide in to eradicating risks.(Prajoga, 2013)
Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee v Crimmins
On July31, 1998, in case of Stevedoring (Industry) Finance Committee v Crimmins, the Court of Appeal established that Stevedoring Industry Association ofAustraliadid not owe to a duty of having to take care to laborworking waterside, warningthe staff about the dangersescalating, if being exposed to asbestos.
The Appeal Court measuredthat there was none legal intention that the respondent be accountable for a failure to make aware the workers of the possibility of harm ahead.(AGS, Govt. of Australia, 1999)
Victoria v Richards Anor [1998]
In thecase, State (Victoria) v Richards Anor [Y1998] Court of Appeal on Nov 11’98 withheld that the Victoria State was not holding a duty of care to abattoir workforces to inform of the threats from contaminated
…show more content…
The state works on numerous cases each day and it is not possible that the State can potentially eradicate all harms from happening. This is why the State held no duty of care and was not in any breach of its duty of care when Mr. Ryan had Hepatitis A due to the consumption of contaminated Oysters.
Analysis- The liability of the Council: There had been no constitutionalestablishment which had as its specific purpose of the possible administration of the business or the deterrence of the adulteration oysters. There was supposedly no straight and active contributionthrough the Council to control the business in anything like the same way as the Council complicated itself in the effort to control the possible basis of a damaging fire in Pyrenees. Asking the same queries and taking similar steps, the Council should not be held liable.
Analysis- The liability of
Rule: During the legal proceedings, it was established that it was a clear case of duty negligence and dereliction on references of the evidences. The resort company is responsible for the maintenance and establishment of safe environment for all the visitors, which was not in this case. During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of the resort and the derelictions of the authority of the resort, was held accountable for this accident. It was established that Mr. Watters had a record of minimal attentions to corporate formalities and he had consistently been skipping all of the corporate meetings. The break down in the boat that led to the deaths of Jared and William Geringer correspond to negligence and ignorance for the duty of
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
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.
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 House of Lords
[8] Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co. of Australia Ltd (1919) 26 CLR 110
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).
The liability for negligent misstatement may arise from pure economic loss. According to Steele (2010), ‘Economic losses will be regarded as “pure” if they do not flow from any personal injury to the claimant nor from physical damage to his or her property’. The boundaries between “pure” economic loss and the loss which is “consequential” from damage were established by the Court
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
Carlill the plaintiff who is the party filling the case went against the defendants who was carbolic smokeball Company due to a breach of contract.
Victorian Stevedoring & General. Contracting Co Pty Ltd & Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73