Case Study – Negligence Legal Issues
Question 1
Identification and Discussion of Legal Issues
In the case of Xin, he intends to sue the Margaret River camping ground for his injuries, arguing that they should have replaced the net or at the very least warned of the danger posed by the hole in the net. The legal issue highlighted here is negligence. Negligence is the failure to take plausible care to evade causing damage to another person. It entails a legal obligation on the part of the public to behave in a certain way to minimise the risk of harm to others.
In law, to prove negligence, we will use the 2014 Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98. It was a petition for a personal injury lawsuit where the Albury commercial club was the defendant. Reid awarded costs after failing to determine any violation of an obligation by the defendant at first instance. On June 18, 2010, the appellant was injured while attending an accolade night ceremony at the defendant’s property in Albury. The plaintiff broke her anklebone and sustained a foot injury while strolling to the podium in the theater where the event was held after missing the stairs to the ballroom and falling (Reid v Commercial Club, 2014). The accused, who was the owner and dweller of the Commercial Club Albury, was sued by the plaintiff, charging that the defendant had violated an obligation of care overdue to her. Case Study – Negligence Legal Issues.
Even though the ballroom was below the elevation of the stage itself and that the bulb had been darkened for dancing after the awards presentation, the judge found no violation of duty by the accused at first instance. It was a situation involving the responsibility of the occupier (Reid v Commercial Club, 2014). The Court of Appeal held that the liability of a premises occupier to users of its property is to take reasonable responsibility to eliminate a possible threat of injury to participants. Still, the duty does not apply to avoiding all risks, keeping in mind that what is reasonable can differ depending on the complainant’s entry into the property.
In the case of Joey, she intends to sue Margaret River’s local authority (the council) for failing to install a barrier around the cliff’s edge. The legal issue developed in this scenario is a tort arising out of negligence. In common law jurisdictions, a tort is a civil misdeed that results in harm or damage to a plaintiff and entails legal responsibility for the person who caused the injury (CHAN, 2016). Duty, breach of duty, cause, and damage are the four components of any good tort case. A violation of obligation by the respondent against the complainant that led to an injury must have occurred for a tort claim to be well-founded.
In law, to prove negligence and the precedent obligation of a government agency, the Australian High Court in the case of Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory in 1998 will be adopted. Nadia Anne Romeo dropped six meters from the peak of the Dripstone Mountains onto the Casuarina Beach in rural Darwin on April 24, 1987. Romeo was paralyzed from the waist down due to severe injuries. She sued the appellant, the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, for damages in the Supreme Court.
The High Court declined to hold the Commission liable. The Conservation Commission was accused of negligence for failing to warn of the cliff’s existence or install a fence or other barrier at the cliff’s edge (Romeo v Conservation Commission, 1998). The Court determined that there was no need for the Conservation Commission to bear responsibility in this case because the danger was evident, and holding otherwise would have far-reaching implications for public access to the natural environment around the country. Case Study – Negligence Legal Issues.
In Jerene’s case, the legal issue is negligence. Jerene wants to sue Margaret River’s local government (the council) for the cost of her physiotherapy and other recovery services because the Town allowed surfboards in the designated swimming area. In law, to prove negligence, the New South Wales Supreme Court case of 1990 between Glasheen and The Council of the Municipality of Waverley will be used. Rebecca Glasheen, 14, was wounded while surfing in white water between the flags at Bondi Beach on a foam surfboard. She became permanently disabled after being struck by a fibreglass surfboard or hitting her head on the seabed while attempting to evade capture (Glasheen v. The Council, 1990). At the time, one lifesaver on duty said he hadn’t seen any surfboard riders in the flagged field.
Sharpe J was tasked with determining whether the council could be held liable for harms suffered in the surf at a public beach or whether policy considerations covered it (Glasheen v. The Council, 1990). He also looked at whether the city council had a responsibility to uphold a private cause of action. Both issues were decided in favor of the plaintiffs. According to the facts of the event, lifeguards’ primary responsibility is to keep a close eye on swimmers in designated areas, which included the prohibition of ‘hard’ surfboards. Sharpe J ruled that the lifesaver had failed to properly supervise the flagged area since surfboard riders were discovered in the area.
Examination and Analysis of Information
Xin intends to sue the Margaret River camping ground for his injuries, arguing that they should have replaced the net or at the very least warned of the danger posed by the hole in the net. The legal principle that the defendant’s wrongful actions must proximately incur damages governs the recovery of damages by a plaintiff in a case (Dietrich, 2015). Injuries are likely to be limited to those that the defendant might reasonably expect. There could be no responsibility if the defendant did not predict that their conduct would cause harm to others. Damages in tort are awarded to put the victim in the position he would have been in if the tort had not occurred.
As for Joey, she intends to sue Margaret River’s local authority (the council) for failing to install a barrier around the cliff’s edge. In Margaret River’s local authority’s defence they will quote that Joey and her friend Jerene could not notice the warning sign due to intoxication. They could also assert that the degree of obviousness of the danger warrants individuals to practice self-care. In exceptional circumstances, the defendant would be required to show that they were not reckless (Kyriakakis et al., 2019). It will only happen if the damage does not have occurred if sufficient precautions had been taken, because there is no other reason for what happened, known as res ipsa loquitor, or the thing that speaks for itself. After all, the defendant was in command of the situation while the victim was not.
Therefore, Joey can use the concept of contributory negligence as a defence. Contributory negligence happens when the claimant is partially to blame for his injury, and the defendant may use this as a defence (Thampapillai, 2015). Depending on the degree to which the complainant is judged liable for his loss, the Court can reduce any damages. The defendant has the burden of proving that the complainant was at fault and therefore led to their injury. Although the injuries are consolidated to represent the degree to which the complainant was responsible for their injuries, the defendant remains liable.
In the case of Jerene, she wants to sue the council for the cost of her physiotherapy and other recovery services. Those in charge of beaches owe a duty of care to swimmers using beaches under their jurisdiction. Areas of possible neglect include insufficient monitoring of designated swimming areas, failure to warn of hidden or unusual naturally occurring hazards, and failure to warn of dangerous surf conditions (Dietrich, 2015). Therefore, Jerene qualifies for special damages due to lost wages and medical bills and general damages and injury.
Case Study – Negligence Legal Issues. In any claim of negligence, the primary remedy would be a payment of damages. The claimant’s injury must be of a sort that is reasonably probable (Dietrich, 2015). If a reasonable individual might have expected how the crash, malfunction, or damage will occur, the loss is reasonably predictable. As a general rule, the complainant must establish that the defendant breached the duty of care. Use APA referencing style.
