1 816 UNSW Law Journal Volume 27(3) CASE NOTE COMMON LAW LIABILITY OF CLUBS FOR INJURY TO INTOXICATED PATRONS: COLE v SOUTH TWEED HEADS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LTD ROSALIND DIXON * AND JASON SPINAK ** I INTRODUCTION In Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd 1 ( Cole ), the High Court considered the liability in negligence of a registered club for injury to a patron injured shortly after leaving the club in a state of extreme intoxication. The Court held by a majority of 4 2 (Heydon J taking no part, having sat in the matter in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales) that the appeal should be dismissed, there being no breach of any relevant duty of care. Cole was a case which turned strongly on its facts. It does, however, provide significant guidance as to the position at common law in relation to liability of licensed premises for injuries to patrons injured as a result of their own intoxication, and to third persons injured by reason of a patron s intoxication. 2 * BA/LLB, University of New South Wales, LLM (Harvard); SJD Candidate, Harvard. ** BA (Hons), University of Sydney, LLB, University of New South Wales; Solicitor, Supreme Court of New South Wales; Casual Academic, University of New South Wales. 1 (2004) 207 ALR The question of liability to persons injured as a result of their own intoxication has been the subject of recent legislation in all States, but the second question remains one which the common law position will substantially govern. See Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (as amended by Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 (NSW)) ss 49 (no duty to or higher standard of care in relation to person by reason of fact they are intoxicated), 50(2) (no award for death, personal injury or damage to person s property to be made where person was intoxicated, unless court satisfied that injury would have occurred even if person had not been intoxicated); Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ss 19 (no liability for personal injury suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities), 46 (no duty to or higher standard of care in relation to person by reason of fact they are intoxicated); Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) s 20 (no liability for harm suffered from obvious risk of dangerous recreational activities); Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) (as amended by the Wrongs and Other Acts (Law of Negligence) Act 2003 (Vic)) s 14G
2 2004 Case Note: Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd 817 Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the decision in Cole provides confirmation of the direction of the Court s jurisprudence in terms of a contraction in the law of negligence, as the last outpost of the welfare state. 3 In line with a broad roll-back of liability occurring by legislative amendment and lower court decision, 4 as well as in the High Court itself, 5 the reasoning of two members of the Court decisively embraced the importance to the law of negligence of values of individual autonomy, privacy and responsibility, over principles of compensation, loss-spreading, welfare-maximisation and collective responsibility. The reasoning of the Court also provides some guidance as to how the Court will approach questions of voluntariness of choice in other contexts. It is worthy of attention for these reasons. In addition, the facts of Cole suggest that we might as a community want to pause to reconsider the balance struck between the privacy of individual consumers of alcohol and broader community safety concerns. That debate is, of course, a very far-reaching one, and one largely best left to the legislative sphere. However, we submit that it is one raised by the experience of Ms Cole. II THE FACTS The respondent Club hosted a breakfast before a day of football, at which it served free spumante. The appellant attended the breakfast with friends and consumed a large quantity of the free alcohol, before sharing in a further bottle of spumante purchased by a friend, Ms Hughes. At 12:30pm, Ms Cole purchased a further bottle of alcohol, and continued to drink into the afternoon, though it was not shown whether or not she had purchased any alcohol after 12:30pm, or whether it was supplied to her by two men she was with at that time. At 3pm, the respondent refused to serve Ms Cole, and at about 5:30pm asked that she leave, and offered to arrange a complimentary transfer bus or a taxi. Ms Cole refused this offer and left the Club. At about 6:20pm she was struck by a car as she walked along the verge of the highway, 100 metres from the Club. (intoxication of plaintiff to be considered in determining question of breach); Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5H (no liability for harm from obvious risks inherent in dangerous recreational activities). See also the provisions creating a rebuttable presumption that the intoxicated person was contributorily negligent: Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 47; Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) (as amended by Law Reform (Ipp Recommendations) Act 2004 (SA)) s 46; Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) s 5; Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5L. 3 Justice James Spigelman, Negligence: The Last Outpost of the Welfare State (2002) 76 Australian Law Journal See, eg, Prast v Town of Cottesloe (2000) 22 WAR 474 (no liability for body-surfing injury); Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Energy v Harper (2000) 1 VR 133 (no liability for bushwalking injury); Waverley Municipal Council v Swain  Aust Torts Reports (no liability for injury from diving into sandbar in surf). See also Kieran Tapsell, Turning the Negligence Juggernaut (2002) 76 Australian Law Journal 581; Harold Luntz, Torts Turnaround Downunder (2001) 1 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal See, eg, Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460 (no liability for failure to provide helmet or other padding in indoor cricket game).
3 818 UNSW Law Journal Volume 27(3) Ms Cole sued the respondent Club and the driver in negligence, and the trial judge, Hulme J, found negligence on the part of both respondents. His Honour also found Ms Cole to have been contributorily negligent, and apportioned liability as between Ms Cole, the driver and the Club in the amount of 40, 30 and 30 per cent respectively. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, which by unanimous judgment (Ipp AJA, Santow and Heydon JJA concurring) allowed the appeal by both respondents, and set aside the findings of negligence. Special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal setting aside judgment against the first respondent (the Club) was granted to the appellant on 20 June III THE JUDGMENTS Chief Justice Gleeson held that there was no relevant duty to take reasonable care to protect the appellant from personal injury occasioned by excessive consumption of alcohol. The Chief Justice started from the proposition that the law protects the individual freedom of mature adults to make choices regarding the consumption of alcohol. 6 To impose a duty of care on persons serving alcohol to prevent consumers becoming dangerously or excessively intoxicated would interfere with that freedom. 7 It would also require monitoring of patrons which would present practical difficulties, as well as diminish individual privacy. 8 To impose liability on the server of alcohol for voluntary choices by the consumer, in the face of obvious dangers to them from such consumption, would be to fail to respect values of personal responsibility. 9 The Chief Justice also drew attention to the difficulty in confining any such liability to circumstances where a person is extremely intoxicated, as such levels of intoxication are hard to discern, 10 and relatively modest alcohol consumption in combination with an intention to drive might be considered more dangerous than higher consumption where a person intends to walk home. 11 His Honour did not think it possible clearly to distinguish between a duty in a commercial as opposed to a social setting, given the increased opportunity for monitoring and influence in the latter setting. 12 In any event, the Chief Justice held that there was no evidence that the appellant was served alcohol after 12:30pm, or that she was noticeably and significantly intoxicated when served alcohol at 12:30pm. 13 In terms of the Club s alleged failure to ensure safe transport for the appellant, the Chief Justice held that there is in law no general duty to rescue, and that there 6 Cole (2004) 207 ALR 52, Ibid Ibid. 9 Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid. 13 Ibid.
4 2004 Case Note: Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd 819 was no basis for finding an exceptional duty in these circumstances. In any event, the Chief Justice was of the view that any such duty was discharged by offers to call a taxi or provide a courtesy bus, and by obtaining assurances from the appellant s companions that they would take care for her safety. 14 Justice Callinan was prepared to go further than the Chief Justice in considering whether a duty of care was owed in circumstances of the relevant kind, finding that except in extraordinary cases, the law should not recognise a duty of care to protect persons from harm caused by intoxication following a deliberate and voluntary decision on their part to drink. 15 Like the Chief Justice, his Honour stressed the values of personal autonomy and responsibility relied on by the Court of Appeal, 16 and the infringement upon privacy and liberty of any duty to monitor or restrain patrons, adopting in relation to the latter point the entirety of the reasoning of Heydon JA in the Court of Appeal. 17 Justice Callinan stressed that the decision to drink carried with it the known risk that the capacity to make decisions about further consumption would be progressively impaired. 18 Justice Callinan also followed the Chief Justice in finding that there was no evidence that the appellant s intoxication would have been apparent to the respondent s employees at 12:30pm, or that any alcohol was supplied directly to her thereafter. 19 No breach of any duty to take care existed in the circumstance, nor in allowing the appellant to leave the premises with a group of men, having refused the offer of transport. 20 In a concurring judgment, Gummow and Hayne JJ confined their decision more closely to the facts of the particular case, as it was pleaded. Their Honours found that the appeal should be disposed of on the basis that there was no breach of any duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the appellant did not leave the premises in an intoxicated state, by reason of the fact that the Club offered her safe transport home. 21 It did not have any additional duty to counsel her against refusing the offer, or to involve the police. 22 This was especially so, their Honours held, given that the appellant was willingly in the company of two apparently sober men offering to look after her. 23 In addition, any breach of a duty to take reasonable care to monitor and moderate the amount of alcohol the appellant consumed did not cause her injury, as her refusal of transport home was an intervening cause of that injury. 24 Their Honours did also suggest, however, that it would be important in determining cases of this kind to have regard to the fact that patrons of bars were adults, none of whom could be expected to be ignorant of the intoxicating 14 Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid. 19 Ibid Ibid Ibid 66, Ibid Ibid. 24 Ibid 66,
5 820 UNSW Law Journal Volume 27(3) effects of the alcohol they voluntarily consumed. 25 In addition, difficulties in knowing (or monitoring) what alcohol patrons consume, or determining what level of intoxication had been reached, would inform the scope of any relevant duty. 26 In dissent, McHugh and Kirby JJ held that the respondent Club s duty, as occupier with absolute control over the premises, was an affirmative one. 27 It extended to taking reasonable care to prevent injury caused by, and reasonably foreseeable as a result of, consumption of alcohol on the premises. 28 In terms of the values of autonomy and personal responsibility, McHugh J held that where an affirmative duty is owed to a defendant by a plaintiff, the common law does not hold the plaintiff absolutely responsible for their choices. His Honour compared this case to that of an employee who acts carelessly in performing their work. 29 In terms of the majority s concerns in relation to monitoring and privacy, McHugh J held that such monitoring already occurs and is inherent in an affirmative duty to take care. 30 Monitoring will also be required to fulfil duties on the part of an occupier to prevent patrons causing injury to one another. Justice Kirby held that values of personal autonomy and responsibility, which might in some cases favour a finding that no liability exists, were overridden by the context of the commercial setting in which the alcohol was supplied for profit. 31 His Honour relied on the statutory context of the Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW), and analogous Canadian case law, as supporting the imposition of a duty in the circumstances of Cole. In Justice McHugh s view, difficulties in determining levels of intoxication went to the reasonableness of a defendant s conduct, not to the existence of a duty of care. 32 The Club should have monitored Ms Cole s drinking, but in any event, it became aware of her high level of intoxication in the early afternoon before the accident. The content of its duty was then to take steps to prevent her drinking not only by refusing to serve her alcohol, but also by warnings, by ensuring that she was not served alcohol purchased by others, and if need be, by removing her from the premises at that time. 33 Having breached its duty in the early afternoon, it was irrelevant that the appellant later refused the offered transport (the very thing that might have been expected from allowing her to consume further alcohol) or that the Club relied on assurances by third persons, as these events did not (contrary to the finding of Gummow and Hayne JJ) constitute a novus actus interveniens Ibid Ibid. 27 Ibid 60 1 (McHugh J), 71 2 (Kirby J). 28 Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid Ibid 63.
6 2004 Case Note: Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd 821 Justice Kirby also held that the Club did not discharge its duty of care by offering transport at the time and manner in which it did. He found that it ought to have taken steps earlier in the day to ensure that Ms Cole was not served any further alcohol, and reached home safely. 35 IV COMMENT A The Law of Occupier s Liability Given that Gummow and Hayne JJ deliberately refrained from addressing the question of duty, the Court in Cole was evenly divided as to whether, as a matter of common law, absent exceptional circumstances, a registered club will owe a duty of care to its patrons to prevent harm to them resulting from their intoxication. The Chief Justice and Callinan J thought considerations of freedom of choice, privacy, and personal responsibility meant that no duty should be imposed. Justices McHugh and Kirby held a relevant duty should be held to exist, by reason of an occupier s control over premises and the activities conducted therein, and in Justice Kirby s view, by reason of their commercial interest in the supply of alcohol, and existing duties of care under statute. However, one may safely assume from the judgment of Heydon JA in the Court of Appeal, that his Honour would agree with the Chief Justice and Callinan J, in finding that values of privacy, liberty and bodily integrity militate against the imposition of a duty of care. Further, while Gummow and Hayne JJ explicitly reserved their position, their Honours references to risks known to adults, and practical difficulties in monitoring and determining the relevant level of intoxication at which the duty would be enlivened, would suggest that they would favour imposing at most a fairly narrow duty on the part of a supplier perhaps in the case of a supply in the face of actual knowledge of gross intoxication, or where the supplier knew of actual circumstances which would make a lesser degree of intoxication a significant risk to the patron s safety. Liability at common law to persons injured by their own intoxication is therefore likely to be very narrowly confined. The position of liability to third persons injured by an intoxicated person is not expressly considered by the Court. The Court s reasoning does, however, speak to the potential liability of licensed premises in circumstances such as those considered in Chordas v Bryant (Wellington) Pty Ltd 36 ( Chordas ) and Oxlade v Gosbridge Pty Ltd 37 ( Oxlade ), where a hotel was sued for negligent failure to protect patrons from harm resulting from the actions of other intoxicated patrons. The reasoning of the majority in Cole casts some doubt on the reliance placed by the Full Federal Court in Chordas, and by adoption by the Court of Appeal of 35 Ibid (1988) 20 FCR Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, Mason P, Sheppard and Fitzgerald AJJA, 18 December 1998.
7 822 UNSW Law Journal Volume 27(3) New South Wales in Oxlade, on the notion of an affirmative duty of care on the part of an occupier toward patrons. 38 However, it is suggested that Cole should not be read as casting doubt on the entirety of the reasoning in Chordas. 39 Rather, to the extent that liability according to the reasoning in Chordas depends on hotel staff knowing or having reason to know in the absence of intrusive monitoring that a patron poses a danger by reason of their intoxication, it is suggested that the Chordas line of cases remains good law. 40 Where a patron poses a danger to others, that individual is no longer free to choose to remain on the premises consuming alcohol. A concern to protect individual autonomy becomes less relevant, and judicial concern to uphold personal responsibility does not bar imposition of liability. In addition, the reading of the Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW) favoured by Gummow and Hayne JJ (in contrast to Kirby J) as designed to preserve order in licensed premises, rather than protect individuals from the results of intoxication, would support imposition of liability in this kind of circumstance. Where, however, the danger posed by a patron to other patrons (or for that matter to road-users or domestic partners) is not reasonably apparent, the majority s concern about individual privacy retains force, and the relevance of the statutory duty diminishes. Further, any duty owed to a third party would need to accommodate the fact that licensed premises are not entitled to restrain or detain patrons, other than for the lawful purpose of ejecting them. B Broader Trends in the Law of Negligence Cole thus forms part of a noticeable trend in Australian jurisprudence toward a more restrictive concept of liability in negligence, especially where liability occurs in the context of high-risk activities which involve obvious risks clearly apparent to adult participants. 41 It confirms the shift in the case law toward treating considerations which were once considered relevant to defences of contributory negligence 42 or voluntary assumption of risk (that is, as partial or rarely available answers to an allegation of negligence) as determining the existence and scope of the duty of care. 38 In Chordas (1988) 20 FCR 91, the Full Federal Court suggested in dicta that a hotel might be liable as an occupier for failure to supervise or eject a patron who was known or ought to have been known to pose a danger to other patrons: at 97, That reasoning was adopted by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Oxlade (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, Mason P, Sheppard and Fitzgerald AJJA, 18 December 1998), in which a majority of the Court (Fitzgerald AJA dissenting) held the respondent hotel liable in contribution for a failure to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of patrons in the car-park area at closing time, from dangers posed by other intoxicated patrons. 39 On a previous occasion, the High Court has specifically reserved the question whether Chordas-type liability constitutes an exception to the general rule that the law will not impose a duty to prevent harm from the criminal conduct of a third party even if the risk of harm is foreseeable: Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254, 294 (Hayne J). 40 For cases applying these principles, see, eg, Wormald v Schintler  Aust Torts Reports ; Speer v Nash (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Studdert J, 17 December 1992). 41 See cases cited above nn 4, For the High Court s previous approach, requiring that questions about duty and contributory negligence remained distinct, see, eg, Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431, (Toohey and Gummow JJ).
8 2004 Case Note: Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd 823 Cole is also important in that it provides clarification of the attitude of at least some members of the Court to the content of the concept of knowing and voluntary assumption of risk, as it relates to the duty of care or breach stage of the inquiry. It is clear that both Gleeson CJ and Callinan J treated this question as having a strongly normative rather than simply descriptive character. That is, their Honours were concerned to hold persons responsible for choices to assume risks to their safety or wellbeing, as the necessary quid pro quo of individual freedom to make those choices, 43 rather than investigate a person s actual decision-making capacity at various stages. Their Honours held that, once a person chooses to engage in an activity with known risks, the fact that they become increasingly unable to form judgments and take actions to avoid those risks does not diminish their moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Choices to assume a risk have a once-and-for-all character, rather than a more gradated or contextual meaning (such as, for example, a series of decisions to attend the breakfast, to drink the alcohol supplied, and to buy more alcohol after the alcohol supplied was consumed). While reserving their position, Gummow and Hayne JJ appeared to offer some support for this view, in holding that the appellant s only disability as an adult woman was the state of intoxication she had induced in herself. 44 Therefore, it may perhaps be inferred that the dismissal by the High Court of an application for special leave to appeal in Reynolds v Katoomba RSL All Services Club Ltd 45 was based on a similar normative rather than descriptive conception of voluntariness. In that case, the plaintiff (to the knowledge of the defendant) had a gambling addiction, but the Court of Appeal of New South Wales held that his gambling activity beyond the point of prudence was voluntary, in that he had a choice to stay away from the Club altogether. 46 By contrast, in dissent in Cole, Kirby J strongly contested this understanding of choice, preferring a more situational notion of choice, and a more collective notion of responsibility for individual safety and wellbeing. C A Need for Community and Legislative Reconsideration? Finally, the decision in Cole is interesting for what it leaves out. As Gleeson CJ noted, what went on between the time [Ms Cole] left the club and the time she was run down by the car is not known. 47 All that is known from the reported decisions is that Ms Cole left the premises, possibly with the two men she had previously been with, and 50 minutes later was walking on the road 100 metres away from the club, in a dazed state. Whether that gap could tell us anything, in an evidentiary sense, about the reasonableness of a club s reliance on the assurances by the two men that they would take care of the appellant cannot be 43 See, eg, Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, 561 (Gleeson CJ), 583 (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, (McHugh J). 44 Cole (2004) 207 ALR 52,  HCA 244 (Unreported, Gleeson CJ and Hayne J, 9 August 2002). 46 (2001) 53 NSWLR 43, Cole (2004) 207 ALR 52, 59.
9 824 UNSW Law Journal Volume 27(3) known. One might still ask, however, whether reliance on those kinds of assurances should have been regarded as reasonable in the circumstances, given the lack of any particular known relationship between Ms Cole and her companions, and their apparent personal interest in her being allowed to stay. 48 The serious injury to Ms Cole and the economic position she now faces suggest that this kind of question may be worthy of further community consideration, along with other assumptions about the value of patrons autonomy or privacy as drinkers, above interests in safety and bodily integrity. In this latter respect, the putatively narrow zone of interests of the Registered Clubs Act 1976 (NSW) may specifically warrant revisiting by the legislature to include a broader concern for the welfare of intoxicated persons themselves. One measure that might be considered in this direction is an explicit provision in the Act imposing a duty to prevent the indirect supply of alcohol to intoxicated persons, via the sale of bottles of alcohol or large numbers of alcoholic drinks purchased by one person for a group of companions. Reconsideration might also be given in this context to the appropriateness of licensed premises such as the respondent club in Cole serving effectively unlimited quantities of free alcohol for some relevant period. V CONCLUSION Cole thus raises very practical questions for policy-makers regarding standards governing the sale of alcohol. It also provides guidance to practitioners and judges in the field of personal injury. Cole confirms that, where individuals engage in risky activities or behaviours, the contraction of the common law of negligence can be expected to continue, in line with statutory developments. 49 Cole is also of interest to common law practitioners in the way in which it embodies a broader philosophical shift between the Mason and Gleeson Courts. It shows that the balance struck by the Court between loss-spreading concerns, which might be described as dignitarian in aspiration, and more libertarian concerns about autonomy and privacy, has decisively altered. It thus demonstrates the way in which the development of the common law may be influenced by what are clearly rights-based concerns, even in the absence of any relevant written rights instrument. Whether the unwritten nature of our rights tradition carries with it some inherent bias toward libertarian over more dignitarian concerns is a question which we do not explore here. We simply note that Cole may have the potential to contribute to our understanding of the 48 See ibid 64 as to the indecent touching occurring between the appellant and her companions at or about the time she was approached by the respondent s manager. But see ibid 69: There was a thinly veiled suggestion that, because it seemed that the appellant s companions may have had sexual designs upon her, they were unsafe companions with whom to allow her to leave the Club. But what business would the Club have had to attempt to look after the moral wellbeing of the appellant? 49 See statutory developments cited above n 2.
10 2004 Case Note: Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd 825 relationship between these rights-based concerns 50 and the common law, as well as to our understanding of the law of negligence. 50 Or, what might perhaps loosely be described as the small c constitution: see, eg, Michael Detmold, Australian Constitutional Equality: The Common Law Foundation (1996) 7 Public Law Review 33, 42.
CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Scott (2009) 260 ALR 606;  HCA 47 High Court of Australia (This case comes after Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club on p 170 (Supervision and Control)) In the
NEGLIGENCE AND INTOXICATION HAS CIVIL LIABILITY REFORM GONE TOO FAR? NORMAN KATTER [This paper focuses on two recent appeals 1 before the High Court of Australia involving negligence actions for damages
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2011) The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context.
Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts What is Negligence? Someone who commits a careless act that creates harm to another person is negligent. Over the past several years, negligence has become the
Concurrent and Proportionate Liability Patrick O Shea SC and Sue Brown 1. There have in the last 5 years or so been wide ranging statutory changes to the law affecting concurrent and proportionate liability.
Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Limited v Sutton (6 June 2008) Introduction: Claims for accidents on building sites usually involve multiple parties. There are often contracts between the parties
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland
Sports Injuries and the Right to Damages Pauline Sadler and Rob Guthrie School of Business Law Curtin University of Technology Abstract This article examines the availability of damages at common law for
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL Case Title: Brozinic v The Federal Capital Press Pty Limited trading as The Canberra Times Citation:  ACTCA 8 Hearing Date: 14 November
The Duty of Solicitors to Give Tax Advice - A Rebuttal of the Reply HE Editor has kindly provided me with the opportunity to respond to the T reply written by a correspondent to my article 'The Duty of
Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,
Passed by both Houses New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Bill 2002 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential
MEDICO/LEGAL ASSOCIATION ALICE SPRINGS 2002 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE The World Changes In considering what some have called the crisis in medical negligence we need to bear in mind that there has been a large
Australian Proportionate Liability Regime May 2014 16 NOVEMBER 2011 Curwoods Lawyers Australia Square Plaza Building Level 9, 95 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 t +61 2 9231 4166 f +61 2 9221 3720 CURWOODS
NEGLIGENCE (Heavily Tested) (Write On the Bar): In order for Plaintiff to recover in Negligence, she or he must plead and prove: DUTY, BREACH OF DUTY, ACTUAL CAUSATION, PROXIMATE CAUSATION, AND DAMAGES.
DEFENCES IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE: To What Extent Has Tort Law Reform in Australia Limited the Liability of Health Professionals? JENNIFER YULE I. INTRODUCTION On the 10 th anniversary of the beginning of
Setting the Standards for Medical Negligence: The Bolam test post Rogers v Whitaker. The High Court, in Rogers v Whitaker 1, rejected the Bolam 2 test of medical negligence, at least with respect to the
APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON A NATIONALLY CONSISTENT BASIS Implementation of the Panel's Recommendations A national response Recommendation 1 The Panel's recommendations should be incorporated
Proposed changes to the Comcare scheme Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Cth) Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Inquiry into the
SAFETY REVIEW NOT SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2008 James C. Kozlowski In contracting for personal services, an architect's duty depends on the particular agreement entered into
Citation: Sadler, Pauline and Guthrie, Rob. 2001. Sports Injuries and the Right to Compensation. Legal Issues in Business 3: 9-14. Permanent Link: http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/r?func=dbin-jump-full&local_base=gen01-era02&object_id=18981
Assessing Damages Under Section 151Z: An Interaction of Schemes Andrew Parker Barrister Henry Parkes Chambers Ty Hickey Barrister State Chambers 1 Calculating damages under s 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation
LEGAL ISSUES Why should I learn about legal issues? School administrators are typically the only personnel to receive training in classroom liability issues, yet teachers have the most responsibility for
Unintentional Torts - Definitions Negligence The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person.
Summary Guide for Chapter 6 Foundations of Australian Law Fourth Edition Callie Harvey ISBN: 978-0-7346-1191-8 (print) ISBN: 978-0-7346-2057-6 (epdf) Foundations of Australian Law, Fourth Edition Chapter
Ask Mike #09-05 Subject: Graduation Parties/Wedding Receptions and Liquor Liability Q. Spring is in the air, and in addition to pollen and allergies, that means parties of all kinds especially for graduations
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE REGISTRY No. Ml29 of 2011 ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL, SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA 10 BETWEEN: TRENT NATHAN KING r.h::-:ig:-:-:h-=c-::-:0 U~R:=T 7 0 F=-A:-:-U:-::ST=:RA:-:-:-:-LIA
Discount Rates and Life Tables: A Review Hugh Sarjeant is a consulting actuary and Paul Thomson is an actuarial analyst at Cumpston Sarjeant Pty Ltd Phone: 03 9642 2242 Email: Hugh_Sarjeant@cumsar.com.au
Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime.
Avant Mutual Group Limited Submissions to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission Inquiry into Aspects of the Wrongs Act 1958 1. Introduction Avant Mutual Group Limited ( Avant ) is Australia
New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other
Litigation Client Newsletter Claims Against Public Officials Recent Significant Cases February 2008 Introduction This newsletter throws a spotlight on negligence claims against the police and raises the
THE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS Introduction In professional negligence proceedings against a solicitor, the court s aim is to determine what amount of money would put the plaintiff in the position he would
CASE EXAMPLES CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITIES & OBLIGATIONS TO INSURE NSW Arabian Horse Association Inc v Olympic Coordination Authority  NSWCA 210 New South Wales Court of Appeal, 23 June 2005 Facts The
CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements,  7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements
BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK SECOND EDITION CHARLES YC CHEW CHAPTER 8: THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE 1. Outline the elements of the tort of negligence. The elements of the tort
1 of 9 10/06/2016 2:54 PM [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] You are here : AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Appeal >> 2009 >>  NSWCA 103 [Database
Legal Research Record Summary of problem(s) Design and Dress Limited (DDL) has experienced problems due to the alleged harassment of one of their employees, Susie Baker, by another employee, Stephen Harding
The Modified Duty of Care for Ski Resorts and Recreational Landowners: A Case Note on Schneider v. St. Clair 1 Prelude By Robert C. McGlashan, McCague Borlack LLP In drafting the Occupiers Liability Act
Sports injuries & the law An introduction to the law of negligence & occupiers liability 2 Defining the law of negligence Negligence Is a duty of care owed by D to C? Has D breached the duty of care owed
TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 DEFENCES 6 Consent (Or Volenti Non Fit Injuria) 6 Illegtality (or Ex Trupi Causa) 7 Contributory Negiligence 8 NEGLIGENCE 11 Duty of Care 11
SPAA SMSF NATIONAL CONFERENCE, BRISBANE 23-25 February 2011 PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 23 February 2011 The Hon Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE * Introduction 1. My remarks this morning, which are directed to the
CAUSATION UNDER THE CLA Causation under the Civil Liability Act Introduction Over the years the courts have toyed with the concept of causation, and how it should be determined. Following the Ipp report
CLAIMS AGAINST FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON By: Jack Slavik COZEN AND O'CONNOR 1201 Third Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Atlanta, GA Charlotte, NC Cherry Hill, NJ Chicago, IL Columbia, SC Dallas,
NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE 15 MARCH 2014 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - BURDENS FOR A DEFENDANT THE HON JUSTICE PETER GARLING RFD 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Now that nearly 12 years have
1965-66 VICTORIA REPORT FROM THE STATUTE LAW REVISION COMMITTEE UPON ACTIONS IN TORT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND AN APPENDIX Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be
Index abnormality. see normality; reasonableness test absence of tests 6 7, 259 accident insurance policies 143 4 accidental shootings dangerous chattels and substances 237 8 intervening conduct of children
Case Note by Paul Ryan February 2014 Settlement Group Pty Ltd v Purcell Partners  VSCA 370 Catchwords: Mortgages Real property Refinancing Multiple mortgages to be refinanced Concurrent transactions
Beyond the Pain Threshold Speech given by John North, President, Law Council of Australia at the Personal Injury and Compensation Forum organised by the Law Council of Australia, Sydney 3 June 2005 GPO
UNIMPROVED LAND IMMUNITY IN CLIFF FALL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1987 James C. Kozlowski During recent months, the "NRPA Law Review" has presented decisions from various jurisdictions which discussed
Thomson and Australian Federal Police  AICmr 83 (22 November 2013) Decision and reasons for decision of Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim Applicant: Respondent: Brendan Thomson Australian Federal
New South Wales Witness Protection Act 1995 No 87 Status information Currency of version Current version for 5 October 2012 to date (generated 10 October 2012 at 19:15). Legislation on the NSW legislation
THE COMMON LAW S APPROACH TO LIABILITY AND REDRESS ITS APPLICABILITY TO EAST AFRICA Migai Akech Workshop on Liability and Redress Under the Cartagena Protocol, 22-26 September 2003, Mombasa organised by
Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
Sample Tort Law Problem Question UniCramNotes.com Copyright UniCramNotes.com 2010 Page 1 Sample Tort Law Problem Question Whether Autumn Bay High and Johnny owe a duty of care to Persephone and Aphrodite.
Employer Liability for Employee Conduct by Lisa Mann 05-01-2000 EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYEE CONDUCT: When Does An Employer Have to Pay? by Lisa Mann Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. Employers
Limitation of Liability Submission to the Attorney-General (Western Australia) July 2000 The Institution of Engineers, Australia Institution of Engineers, Australia 11 National Circuit, Barton, ACT, 2604
No duty of care owed by a public authority for negligent misstatement Case Name: Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board Citation:  HCA 19; High Court of Australia per Gleeson CJ, Gummons, Hayne, Gaudron, Kirby,
PEER PROFESSIONAL OPINION ITS IMPACT ON MEDICAL CLAIMS By Sarah Vallance Following the release of the Final Report of the Review of the Law of Negligence in September 2002 (the Ipp Report), all Australian
DAPTO HIGH SCHOOL YEAR 11 LEGAL STUDIES Preliminary Mid-Course Examination 2009 General Instructions: Reading time 5 minutes Working time 1 ½ hours Write using blue or black pen Write your Student Number/Name
NEGLIGENCE: ELEMENT I: DUTY CHAPTER 13 General Rule on Duty What is a duty? A duty is an obligation or a requirement to conform to a standard of conduct prescribed by law. Consider the following questions.
01 technical spandeck SPANDECK ENGINEERING V DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY This article focuses on the impact of the case of Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency
DOG LAW NORTHERN IRELAND This information is intended as a guide and is not to be taken as legal advice. If you have a specific query, you should take advice from a specialist Solicitor or contact your
1. ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK: This doctrine was abolished in Oregon. ORS 31.620(2). But see Comparative Negligence below. 2. COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE: The Court may deduct from a damages award certain collateral
Present: All the Justices COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL. OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 060774 January 12, 2007 KAREN BURNS, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Lombard Insurance Co Ltd v City of Cape Town  JOL 20661 (SCA) Issue Order CASE NO: 441/06 Reportable In the matter between: LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY
[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d
The legal regulation of OHS Introduction This session will explore how the law is used to regulate occupational health and safety. The entire course is intended to assist you to implement the Occupational
6 CONTENTS Introduction 570 Current law 570 Community responses 571 The Commission s views and conclusions 573 569 Introduction 26.1 This chapter deals with the ability of substitute decision makers to
Premises Liability for Third Party Crime (Full Article) Owners and managers of commercial property (including leased residential properties) can be held liable under civil negligence claims for harm to
LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 7:09 Act 36 of 1997 Amended by 2 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 18.. L.R.O. 2 Chap. 7:09 Limitation of Certain Actions
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number : 280/03 Reportable In the matter between : F F HOLTZHAUSEN APPELLANT and ABSA BANK LIMITED RESPONDENT CORAM : HARMS, NAVSA, BRAND, CLOETE, HEHER
Chapter 11 Torts in the Business Environment Tort a civil wrong not arising from a breach of contract. A breach of a legal duty that proximately causes harm or injury to another. Two notions serve as the
Introduction The RAJI (CIVIL) 5th Product Liability Instructions refer only to manufacturers and sellers. These instructions should be expanded when appropriate to include others in the business of placing
RESPONSE TO THE EQUITY, CAPACITY AND DISABILITY IN COMMONWEALTH LAWS DISCUSSION PAPER 81 Legal Aid NSW submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission July 2014 Legal Aid NSW welcomes the opportunity
- CTP Update High Court of Australia - Allen v Chadwick Relying on the care and skill of an intoxicated driver: the lesser of two evils? Carl Moseling - Insurance Sunshine Coast - T 07 5352 9820 - E email@example.com
n IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y- V. b e a c h...a n d. o t h e r s REASONS FOR JUDGMENT t u l l y v. BEACH AND OTHERS - JUDGMENT (o r a l ). JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY DIXON C.J. COMM: