Boyd v Bert Bell/pete Rozelle Nfl Players Retirement Plan [2005] USCA9 326; 410 F.3d 1173 (13 June 2005).
http://www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USCA9/2005/326.html
1300 00 2088
Category Archives: Personal Injury
Allianz Aust v GSF Aust [2005] HCA 26
ON 19 MAY 2005, the High Court of Australia delivered Allianz Aust v GSF Aust [2005] HCA 26; 221 CLR 568; 215 ALR 385; 79 ALJR 1079 (19 May 2005).
The High Court held that a worker who injured his back whilst directed by his employer to use crowbars to unload transport containers from a truck following a mechanical breakdown did not receive an “injury” within the meaning of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 as the mechanism was not defective. The injury was received through an unsafe system of work rather than the “use or operation of a motor vehicle”.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Smith [2005] NSWCA 130
ON 26 APRIL 2005, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Smith by his next friend Avard & Anor [2005] NSWCA 130 (26 April 2005).
The plaintiff was a nine year old boy who had been travelling as a passenger in a truck driven by his father. They had been crabbing on a boat borrowed from a friend and were towing the boat back to it’s owner. The plaintiff’s father stopped the truck across the road from the boat owner’s premises and directed the plaintiff to cross the road and open the gate. The plaintiff was injured when he was struck by another vehicle whilst crossing the road.
The father was held to be at fault in pausing and arranging for the gate to be opened and this was compensable under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 as it occurred in the use or operation of a motor vehicle.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Harvey & 1 Ors v PD [2004] NSWCA 97
ON 30 MARCH 2004, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Harvey & 1 Ors v PD [2004] NSWCA 97. A doctor performing STD tests upon a couple has a duty before the tests are performed to obtain the couple’s consent to share the results.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2004/97.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
NSW v Lepore [2003] HCA 4
ON THIS DAY in 2003, the High Court of Australia delivered New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4; 212 CLR 511; 195 ALR 412; 77 ALJR 558 (6 February 2003).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2003/4.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35
ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2002, the High Court of Australia delivered Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; 211 CLR 317; 191 ALR 449; 76 ALJR 1348 (5 September 2002).
In a claim for damages for psychiatric injury caused by negligence, direct perception of the event or its aftermath is not a necessary aspect in all cases.
The question is whether it was reasonable to require the defendant to contemplate the risk of psychiatric injury to the plaintiff, and to take reasonable care to guard against the risk.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
ON 18 JUNE 2002, the NSW Civil Liability Act 2002 was enacted.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/
The substantive provisions commenced retrospectively on 20 March 2002. There have been successive amendments, notably those which commenced in December 2002 and 2004 and June 2006.
The Act modifies the Australian common law with respect to civil liability claims in New South Wales, except those set out in s3B.
The Act limits the circumstances in which people may recover damages for civil wrongs and the amount of damages and costs they recover.
The significant features of the Act include:
- Statement of principles for determining negligence.
- Modification of causation test.
- No duty to warn of obvious risk.
- No liability for materialisation of inherent risk.
- No liability for harm suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities.
- No duty of care for risk warning of dangerous recreational activity.
- Standard of care for professionals.
- Contributory negligence can defeat a claim.
- Fixing damages for economic and non-economic loss, including thresholds, discounts and maximum limits.
- Limiting interest.
- Restrictions for persons in custody.
- Restrictions for mental harm.
- Allocation of proportionate liability for concurrent wrongdoers.
- Limiting liability of public authorities.
- Restricting recovery for intoxicated persons.
- Exclusion of liability for persons acting in self defence, good Samaritans, food donors or volunteers.
- Apologies not to affect liability.
- Limiting damages for birth of a child.
- Exclusion of liability for trespass or nuisance by ordinary use of aircraft.
- Costs restrictions.
The Act does not apply to claims (or parts of claims) regarding:
- Intentional acts with the intent to cause injury or death or sexual assault or other sexual misconduct.
- Dust diseases.
- Tobacco.
- Motor Accidents and public transport accidents.
- Workers, Victims and Sporting Injuries compensation.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
ON THIS DAY IN 2002, some parts of the Civil LIability Act 2002 (NSW) are taken to have commenced.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/
Sharp v Stephen Guinery t/as Port Kembla Hotel and Port Kembla Rsl Club [2001] NSWSC 336
ON 23 APRIL 2001, Justice Peter McClellan of the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Sharp v Stephen Guinery t/as Port Kembla Hotel and Port Kembla Rsl Club [2001] NSWSC 336 (23 April 2001).
“Judgment on application for verdict by direction
negligence action
whether plaintiff precluded from putting a case in negligence to jury
whether evidence of breach of duty
whether evidence which could establish that the taking of any step would have eliminated risk of plaintiff’s injury
whether evidence before the jury that the risk of injury from tobacco smoke was reasonably foreseeable
whether rule in Browne v Dunn has application
s 23(4), s 42(1) Factories, Shops & Industries Act 1962”
Sharp had sought damages from her employer alleging that her exposure to tobacco smoke as a barmaid resulted in her suffering from laryngeal cancer. The case was heard before a jury.
The judgment led to jury directions which resulted in a finding that the cancer was caused, or materially contributed to, by the employer’s negligence.
On 2 May 2001, the jury awarded Sharp damages of $466,000 plus costs.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2001/336.html
1300 00 2088
North Sydney Municipal Council v Harrison [2001] NSWCA 4
North Sydney Municipal Council v Harrison [2001] NSWCA 4 (2 February 2001).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2001/4.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 