Category Archives: Negligence

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Work injuries

Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61

ON 16 OCTOBER 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Kondis v State Transport Authority (formerly Victorian Railways Board) [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672 (16 October 1984).

The High Court ruled that a special duty of care by an employer to an employee to provide a safe system of work is non-delegable.

The Victorian State Transit Authority engaged an independent contractor to dismantle a crane in a railway yard. Kondis injured his back when a metal pin fell from the crane. Kondis sued the State Transit Authority. The High Court held that the State Transit Authority, as employer, was liable for the harm caused by the independent contractor because their failure to adopt a safe system of work was a breach of the employer’s non-delegable duty of care.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence

Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52

ON 20 AUGUST 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52; (1984) 155 CLR 549 (20 August 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/52.html

A plaintiff suffered nervous shock when immediately after an accident she saw her injured husband in hospital and was told of the seriousness of his injuries.

The High Court extended the class of persons to whom a duty of care is owed to those who, although not present at the scene of an accident, are at risk of suffering psychiatric injury by personally perceiving the direct and immediate aftermath of the accident in which a person with whom they are in a “close or intimate relationship” with is negligently injured or killed.

The duty of care was characterised as arising from the injury being reasonably foreseeable and sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence

Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) [1981] HCA 59

ON 28 OCTOBER 1981, the High Court of Australia delivered Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) [1981] HCA 59; (1981) 150 CLR 225 (28 October 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/59.html

Government departments and their agencies are under a duty to take reasonable care when passing on information to members of the public.

The measure of damages for negligent mis-statement is “the amount necessary to restore the plaintiff to the position he was in before the statement, subject to the loss being foreseeable.”

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Damages, LAW FIRM, Negligence

Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41

ON 7 AUGUST 1981, the High Court of Australia delivered Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; (1981) 148 CLR 438 (7 August 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/41.html

A plaintiff who claims common law damages for personal injuries, including damages for net loss of earnings, is entitled to also claim the tax he or she has paid on any refundable workers compensation weekly payments (related to those injuries) received before recovering the damages.

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Personal Injury, Torts

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12

ON THIS DAY in 1980, the High Court of Australia delivered Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40 (1 May 1980).

“Negligence – Duty of care – Breach of duty – Foreseeability of risk of injury – Likelihood of harm occurring – Erection of sign “deep water” in vicinity of shallow water – Whether foreseeable that inexperienced water-skier would fall and suffer injury.”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1980/12.html

Mason J at p48 expressed the “risk calculus”, that when deciding on a breach of duty of care, the court must not only determine a foreseeable risk but it must also determine a reasonable man’s response by “consideration of the magnitude of the risk and the degree of probability of its occurrence, along with the expense, difficulty and inconvenience of taking alleviating action and any other conflicting responsibilities which the defendant may have”.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Negligence, Nuisance, Personal Injury

State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell [1979] HCA 40

ON 19 SEPTEMBER 1979, the High Court of Australia delivered State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell [1979] HCA 40; (1979) 142 CLR 617 (19 September 1979).

The High Court confirmed the English common law rule of Searle v Wallbank “that the owner or occupier of a property adjoining the highway is under no legal obligation to users of it so to keep and maintain his hedges, fences and gates as to prevent animals from straying on to it, and that he is not under any duty as between himself and users of it to take reasonable care to prevent any of his animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying on to it” (at 631).

Since this decision, State legislatures have passed laws to make farmers liable for the actions of their animals.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

LAW FIRM, Negligence, Nuisance, Personal Injury

Sydney Lawyers

PERSONAL INJURY. ON 19 SEPTEMBER 1979, the High Court of Australia delivered State Government Insurance Commission v Trigwell [1979] HCA 40; (1979) 142 CLR 617 (19 September 1979).

The High Court confirmed the English common law rule of Searle v Wallbank “that the owner or occupier of a property adjoining the highway is under no legal obligation to users of it so to keep and maintain his hedges, fences and gates as to prevent animals from straying on to it, and that he is not under any duty as between himself and users of it to take reasonable care to prevent any of his animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying on to it” (at 631).

Since this decision, State legislatures have passed laws to make farmers liable for the actions of their animals.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Appeals, Evidence, LAW FIRM, Negligence

Warren v Coombes [1978] HCA 9

ON 13 MARCH 1979, the High Court of Australia delivered Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979) 142 CLR 531 (13 March 1979).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1979/9.html

An appellate court may decide on the proper inference to be drawn from the facts found by a judge sitting alone at trial. Whilst it may give respect and weight to the trial judge’s conclusions, the appellant court must not shrink from giving effect to the conclusion that it reaches.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Duty of Care, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Torts

Anns v Merton LBC [1977] UKHL 4

ON 12 MAY 1977, the House of Lords delivered Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728.

Anns and others were tenants in a block of flats in which were discovered to have structural defects. The council of Merton were responsible for inspecting the depth of the foundations during the construction of the building. The tenants therefore sued the council and the builder for negligence.

The council were held to owe a duty of care to the tenants to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. The case is historically significant by how it broadened the way in which the courts determined if there was a duty of care.

The court introduced a two stage test to determine the scope of the duty of care, though this test is no longer followed in Australia: see Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 (4 July 1985).

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1977/4.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088

Damages, Injunctions, LAW FIRM, Negligence, Neighbourhood disputes, Nuisance

Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6

ON 4 JUNE 1977, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6 (06 April 1977).  A cricket club was sued in negligence and nuisance caused by cricket balls landing on a neighbour’s property.  Whilst ordering damages, the court refused to grant an injunction to cease the action or further action as the game of cricket itself was considered to be in the public interest.

Lord Denning began with the following:

“In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club-house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practice while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a Judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore, lie has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that, when a batsman hits a six, the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the Judge to stop the cricket being played. And the Judge, I am sorry to say, feels that the cricket must be stopped: with the consequences, I suppose, that the Lintz cricket-club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.”

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/6.html

Lawyers

1300 00 2088