Graham Barclay Oysters

1849 Words4 Pages

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

Open Document