Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer School of Law University of New England ARMIDALE NSW 2351.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Forensic Victimology 2nd Edition Chapter Fifteen: Forensic Victimology and Civil Remedy in Premises Liability Cases.
Advertisements

Why volunteers shouldn’t worry (too much) about being sued Dr Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer, School of Law, UNE.
Q3 LAW NOTES 1 TORTS.
Dr Michael Eburn Barrister and Senior Fellow, ANU College of Law and Fenner School of Environment and Society Australian National University Understanding.
Protecting Volunteers. Presentation to the Office of the Victorian Emergency Services Commissioner Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer, School of Law UNE, Armidale,
Perth airport – Emergency law Dr Michael Eburn ANU College of Law The Australian National University CANBERRA ACT 0200 P: E:
Copyright © 2004 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited CANADIAN BUSINESS AND THE LAW Second Edition by Dorothy Duplessis Steven Enman Shannon.
Protecting Volunteers. Presentation to Victorian State Emergency Services and Country Fire Authority Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer, School of Law UNE,
TORT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO WARN OF NATURAL HAZARDS – A THREAT TO COMMUNITY RESILIANCE Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer, School of Law UNE, Armidale, NSW.
Legal Liability and Insurance Chapter 3. Legal Concerns n Liability: being legally responsible for the harm one causes another person. n Standard of Reasonable.
Medicine, mistakes and manslaughter: a criminal combination? Dr Oliver Quick University of Bristol.
News from the courts – post disaster legal proceedings and implications for emergency managers Michael Eburn Senior Research Fellow ANU College of Law.
Legal issues for Tasmania Fire Service and Tasmania Police Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer School of Law UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND NSW January 2010.
Chapter 18: Torts A Civil Wrong
Chapter 16 Lesson 1 Civil and Criminal Law.
Session 2 – Dealing with the legal risk 21 January 2010.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. © 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 5 Negligence Chapter.
Establishing Foreign Law Source: Gerhard Dannemann: Establishing Foreign Law in a German Court, German Law Archive,
Police and the Law 1 1 Police and the Constitution 10.1 Chapter 10 Police and the Law Chapter 10 Police and the Law.
P A R T P A R T Property Personal Property and Bailments Real Property Landlord and Tenant Estates and Trusts Insurance Law 5 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Business.
Dr Michael Eburn ANU College of Law and Fenner School of Environment and Society Australian National University CANBERRA ACT 0200 P: (02) E:
1 Consent for treatment A summary guide for health practitioners about obtaining consent for treatment Bridie Woolnough Resolution Officer Health Care.
(Legal) Risk Assessment Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer, School of Law UNE, Armidale, NSW. 19 November 2008.
Negligence and Unintentional Torts
By Monika, Max, Vanja, Nicole KEY PRINCIPLES OF NEGLIGENCE.
Business Law. Your neighbor Shana is using a multipurpose woodcutting machine in her basement hobby shop. Suddenly, because of a defect in the two-year.
NEGLIGENCE (Unintentional Torts). The elements of negligence: * Negligence * Duty of Care * Standard of Care * Foreseeability * “reasonable person” *
2007- Jonathan Andrew A Evans LIFEGUARD & THE LAW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE RESCUE?
Part 2 – The Law of Torts Chapter 5 – Negligence and Unintentional Torts Prepared by Michael Bozzo, Mohawk College © 2015 McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited 5-1.
Unit 6 – Civil Law.
Associate Professor Dr Michael Eburn ANU College of Law The Australian National University CANBERRA Legal responsibilities and accountability within emergency.
Public law governs:  relationships between individuals and the state/government; and  the structure, administration and operation of the state/government.
Tort Law Summary. Entitles you to sue for damages in a civil court of law Entitles you to sue for damages in a civil court of law It is a “wrong” which.
Mock Trial. Who? What? How? Questions? Samuel decides to take the computer apart to fix it himself. But he couldn’t solve the problem. So five months.
9.2 – Deciding whether or not to take civil action.
Copyright © 2008 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning Chapter 47 Accountant’s Liability and Malpractice Twomey Jennings Anderson’s.
Causes of Action and Remedies Unit 3. Housekeeping Feedback on Action Item 1 Grading Rubrics posted in DocSharing Now Grading Action Item 2.
Chapter 20 Negligence. The failure to exercise a reasonable amount of care in either doing or not doing something resulting in harm or injury.
Mental Capacity Act 2005 Safeguarding Adults.
Legal consequences from the 2003 Canberra fires Michael Eburn Senior Research Fellow ANU College of Law and Fenner School of Environment and Society Darwin,
Torts A.K.A. civil law. What’s a Tort? Torts more or less means “wrongs” Refers to civil laws Based on both common law (decisions made by judges) and.
Chapter 09 Negligence and Strict Liability Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
The Role of the Courts.
Why volunteers shouldn’t worry (too much) about being sued Dr Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer, School of Law, UNE.
Civil Law U.S. Government Chapter 15 Section 2.  Why would someone bring a lawsuit against another person, a business, or an organization? List 2-3 reasons.
Emergency Management for Local Government Legal Issues Michael Eburn ANU College of Law.
Tort Law Summary. Entitles you to sue for damages in a civil court of law Entitles you to sue for damages in a civil court of law It is a “wrong” which.
Defences for Negligence. The best defence is Negligence did not exist, or the defendant didn’t owe the plaintiff a duty of care. The best defence is Negligence.
Legal Issues for the SES Michael Eburn University of New England.
1 Bonvillian v. Dep't of Insurance, 906 So.2d 596 (La.App. Cir ) What is the underlying dispute? Insurance Commission refused to renew a bail bond.
CHAPTER 12: NEGLIGENCE THE BASICS Emond Montgomery Publications 1.
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
Negligence. Definition Negligence in an unintentional Tort This occurs when a person fails to use reasonable care and it causes harm to another person.
Negligence Tort law establishes standards for the care that people must show to one another. Negligence is the conduct that falls below this standard.
Negligence SLO: I can understand the three types of torts, including negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability. I can identify relevant facts.
Corporations and Trusts Law Chapter 9
CHAPTER 2 LEGAL INSTITUTIONS
Chapter 7 Associations.
Legal responsibilities and accountability within emergency first aid.
The Law of Sports Injury
Negligence Mr. Lugo.
Negligence.
Corporations and Trusts Law Chapter 2
Trevorrow v State of South Australia [No5] (2007) 98 SASR 136
UNIVERSITY OF LUSAKA SCHOOL OF LAW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Torts: A Civil Wrong.
The Stages of Litigation
Suing the Australian fire brigades: a question of duty
Negligence Ms. Weigl.
Lesson 6-1 Civil Law (Tort Law).
Presentation transcript:

Michael Eburn Senior Lecturer School of Law University of New England ARMIDALE NSW 2351

What is the issue? Is it: 1.‘Will we be sued?’ or 2.‘Will we win?’

Why don’t people sue? Evidence is that more people could sue than do. Why don’t they sue? We really can’t say. Perhaps they:  do not realise they could seek a legal remedy;  are not able to afford it;  have language barriers;  live in remote areas;  don’t have the time;  couldn’t be bothered;  think their needs are being met by other sources;  the service was what they expected.

Why do people sue? For lots of reasons – eg  To prevent similar incidents occurring in the future;  To know and understand what happened and why;  To obtain monetary compensation; and  To hold individuals and institutions accountable.

Insurance companies Right of subrogation. They cannot care about the ‘public good’ or expectations. The relevant expectations are what can they expect from the legal system. Will the defendant offer something?

On a decision to sue Whether or not a person’s expectations have been met is only one factor that may be considered when deciding whether or not taking legal action will be worthwhile. The exception will be when the person expects that the fire brigade will come and quickly extinguish the fire, and that is in fact what happened.

The law’s expectations These are largely unknowable – even by the judges.

Kirby J “One day this Court may express a universal principle to be applied in determining such cases. Even if a settled principle cannot be fashioned, it would certainly be desirable for the Court to identify a universal methodology or approach, to guide the countless judges, legal practitioners, litigants, insurance companies and ordinary citizens in resolving contested issues about the existence or absence of a duty of care, the breach of which will give rise to a cause of action enforceable under the common law tort of negligence.” Graham Barclay Oysters v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540 [211].

And later… “… a duty of care will be imposed when it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.”

Reasonable expectations Are not part of modern tort law. To determine if a duty arises we look at the ‘salient features’ between the plaintiff and the defendant. Two of them are vulnerability and control: Was the plaintiff vulnerable? Was the defendant able to control the hazard?

NSW v West [2008] ACTCA 14 (5 September 2008) [26] and [27] (Higgins CJ). “A bushfire hazard is clearly a danger to persons and their property and only an organised, trained and equipped service such as the Rural Fire Service could have any prospect of averting danger from a serious bushfire. The vulnerability of the prospective victims is self- evident, particularly if they are or may be assumed to lack the resources to protect themselves.”

Are they reasonable ‘expectations’? “Prepare, stay and defend or leave early” policy is predicated on the assumptions 1.There may not a fire appliance to come you’re way and 2.You are not helpless if you take responsibility for your fire plan.

Fire Brigades Act 1989 (NSW) s 11. “... despite anything to the contrary in any Act, proceed with all speed to the fire and try by all possible means to extinguish it and save any lives and property that are in danger.”

Breach of duty Based on the standard of the reasonable person, not what the plaintiff expects. None of us are the ‘reasonable person’ We all make mistakes – it is not reasonable to expect anyone to be perfect 100% of the time, but that is no defence.

CaseHighest court Approximate time to finalisation Nelligan v MickanCourt of appeal (SA)5 years Keller v MAS and VictoriaSupreme court8 years Gardner v NTHigh Court of Australia10 years Neal v NSW AmbulanceCourt of appeal7 years West v NSW High Court of Australia6 years and still a long way to go NSW v TyszykHigh Court of Australia5 years Some cases – what does the law expect?

The cases Often decide on the issue of ‘duty’ that is (in short) there is no duty to rescue. They don’t then have to decide ‘breach’ (ie was the service ‘reasonable’). The issue of when a statutory authority established for the greater good owes a duty to an individual is complex, but does not depend on ‘expectations’.

Other cases Are decided on the question of breach or causation so they don’t have to deal with the tough question of duty! So the tough questions aren’t answered.

West v NSW Will be a defining case. The critical issues will be was there a duty and if so what was it a duty to do. Over 3000 other cases ‘waiting in the wings’!

Conclusion Managing expectations will only have a marginal legal impact. It may be partially relevant to the question of whether on not a person sues; and marginally relevant to whether or not they win. Other factors motivate the litigant – particularly insurers. ‘Expectations’ are not formally part of the legal tests.