Legal Issue
ILAC Answer:
ISSUE:
Is the Timberlakes own the negligent for duty of care?
Should the Timberlakes put public authorities?
Should the Timberlakes take occupier’s liabilities?
Is there a loss making event for Lindsey Loharn?
Law: Law of Tort—The tort of negligence—Duty of care/ public authorities/ occupier’s liabilities. Duty of care: SWAIN v WAVERLEY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (2005) public authorities: Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) occupier’s liabilities: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986)
Application In regard to the matter between Lindsey Loharn an the Timberlakes, it is likely that the court would consider common law principle in relation to whether the Timberlakes own the duty of care.
i) Whether the timberlakes should put warning outside. ii) Whether the timberlakes should warn persons of the foreseeable risks.
In regard to duty of care, the court may consider the principles established in SWAIN v WAVERLEY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (2005). In this case, Mr. Swain waded out about 15 metres into waist-deep water and dived through a wave but hit his head on a sandbar. The court held that the council had been negligent.
In regard to public authorities, the case Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) , N struck his head on a submerged rock, becoming a paraplegic, By majority HCA decided that RIA were liable. The failure to warn of the hidden danger was a breach of a duty of care and was reasonably forseeable under the circumstances.
In regard to occupier’s liabilities, the case Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986) is assumed. The Zaluzna was injured when she slipped on the wet floor of the defendant’s supermarket. Z sued for damages. Although it had been a rainy day HCA held that ASSPL as an occupier owed Z a duty of care. As the risk was foreseeable ASSPL should have taken adequate precautions to avoid harm.
From the information given it would appear that Lindsey Loharn
ISSUE:
Is the Timberlakes own the negligent for duty of care?
Should the Timberlakes put public authorities?
Should the Timberlakes take occupier’s liabilities?
Is there a loss making event for Lindsey Loharn?
Law: Law of Tort—The tort of negligence—Duty of care/ public authorities/ occupier’s liabilities. Duty of care: SWAIN v WAVERLEY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (2005) public authorities: Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) occupier’s liabilities: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986)
Application In regard to the matter between Lindsey Loharn an the Timberlakes, it is likely that the court would consider common law principle in relation to whether the Timberlakes own the duty of care.
i) Whether the timberlakes should put warning outside. ii) Whether the timberlakes should warn persons of the foreseeable risks.
In regard to duty of care, the court may consider the principles established in SWAIN v WAVERLEY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (2005). In this case, Mr. Swain waded out about 15 metres into waist-deep water and dived through a wave but hit his head on a sandbar. The court held that the council had been negligent.
In regard to public authorities, the case Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) , N struck his head on a submerged rock, becoming a paraplegic, By majority HCA decided that RIA were liable. The failure to warn of the hidden danger was a breach of a duty of care and was reasonably forseeable under the circumstances.
In regard to occupier’s liabilities, the case Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986) is assumed. The Zaluzna was injured when she slipped on the wet floor of the defendant’s supermarket. Z sued for damages. Although it had been a rainy day HCA held that ASSPL as an occupier owed Z a duty of care. As the risk was foreseeable ASSPL should have taken adequate precautions to avoid harm.
From the information given it would appear that Lindsey Loharn