Cole V. South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd.
TORT - A Tort is a civil wrong that is outside of Contract Law and arises out of a recognition that a person is responsible for their acts and omissions when dealing with others. The term "Tort" refers to a number of different laws such as nuisance, trespass and assault. Torts action generally compensates the individual for personal loss where the loss was caused by another person. It is based on Common Law.
NEGLIGENCE - Negligence is one of many types of Torts. Negligence is now the dominant Tort and the focus of this topic.
DEFINITION: Conduct that falls below the standard of care demanded for the protection of others against the unreasonable risk of harm.
To establish a claim for Negligence the plaintiff must prove three essential elements:(1) …show more content…
When the free supply ceased Ms Cole and a friend purchased and consumed further bottles of Spumante. Ms Cole was refused service at the bar in the afternoon because of her intoxicated state. Ms Cole stayed at the Club and its surrounds for the day and was ejected between 5.30 and 6pm for being intoxicated. The Club had offered to call a taxi for Ms Cole as well as offering her the use of the Club bus and driver. One of the men Ms Cole was with had told the Club manager that he would look after her. At some time after this Ms Cole left the Club. Mrs Lawrence 's vehicle hit Ms Cole at around 6.20pm. She had been travelling within the speed limit, it was dark and she had her lights on low beam at the time of the accident. Mrs Lawrence 's evidence was that she had not seen Ms Cole until it was too late to avoid the collision. Ms Cole, who was wearing black clothing, suffered serious injuries from the accident and has continuing disabilities. The trial judge held that Mrs Lawrence had been negligent in that she had failed to keep a proper lookout while driving. Her liability for the injuries suffered by Ms Cole was assessed at 30%. The Club was also held liable for continuing to serve Ms Cole when she was intoxicated. The Club 's liability was also assessed at 30%. His Honour held that Ms Cole had …show more content…
They sue the International Rugby Football Board arguing that the rule makers they are under a duty of care to all players in the sport in relation to the risk of injury, that this duty featured assumption of control and reliance by players (an identifiable class)Gleeson CJ:"When an obviously risky activity is engaged in, voluntarily, for pleasure, by an adult, how does a court determine whether a certain level of risk is unnecessary? … It cannot be the case that all avoidable risks have to be eliminated. … The suggested duty is of uncertain content.""The IRFBs lack of
NEGLIGENCE - Negligence is one of many types of Torts. Negligence is now the dominant Tort and the focus of this topic.
DEFINITION: Conduct that falls below the standard of care demanded for the protection of others against the unreasonable risk of harm.
To establish a claim for Negligence the plaintiff must prove three essential elements:(1) …show more content…
When the free supply ceased Ms Cole and a friend purchased and consumed further bottles of Spumante. Ms Cole was refused service at the bar in the afternoon because of her intoxicated state. Ms Cole stayed at the Club and its surrounds for the day and was ejected between 5.30 and 6pm for being intoxicated. The Club had offered to call a taxi for Ms Cole as well as offering her the use of the Club bus and driver. One of the men Ms Cole was with had told the Club manager that he would look after her. At some time after this Ms Cole left the Club. Mrs Lawrence 's vehicle hit Ms Cole at around 6.20pm. She had been travelling within the speed limit, it was dark and she had her lights on low beam at the time of the accident. Mrs Lawrence 's evidence was that she had not seen Ms Cole until it was too late to avoid the collision. Ms Cole, who was wearing black clothing, suffered serious injuries from the accident and has continuing disabilities. The trial judge held that Mrs Lawrence had been negligent in that she had failed to keep a proper lookout while driving. Her liability for the injuries suffered by Ms Cole was assessed at 30%. The Club was also held liable for continuing to serve Ms Cole when she was intoxicated. The Club 's liability was also assessed at 30%. His Honour held that Ms Cole had …show more content…
They sue the International Rugby Football Board arguing that the rule makers they are under a duty of care to all players in the sport in relation to the risk of injury, that this duty featured assumption of control and reliance by players (an identifiable class)Gleeson CJ:"When an obviously risky activity is engaged in, voluntarily, for pleasure, by an adult, how does a court determine whether a certain level of risk is unnecessary? … It cannot be the case that all avoidable risks have to be eliminated. … The suggested duty is of uncertain content.""The IRFBs lack of