School of Law
Assessment: Essay
Question 1.
Issue 1:
Is Jack and Bronco liable for the injury suffered by Daniel?
Law:
In the Tort of Negligence there are 3 essential elements of an action under common law.
- Duty of care
- Breach of the duty of care
- Damage
Cases:
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Chappel v Hart [1998]195 CLR 232
Application: Has the plaintiff suffered damage?
Plaintiff (Daniel) was a first grade league player of Western Tigers Rugby League Football Club and he was seriously injured and he was force to retire from the game at the peak of his career as a result of Defendant’s breach of duty. As plaintiff was tackled by defendant’s who was Parramatta Storm players while carrying the ball forward and he was picked up off the ground and slammed bead first back into the ground which is known as “Spear Tackle”.
Under Section 10 of the National Rugby League’s Laws of the game as “ If in any tackle or contact with an opponent, that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of a player’s body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck (the dangerous position) then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw, which is recognised by the law and plaintiff was suffered as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty of care.Here, the defendant’s wrongful act or omissions results from a dangerous throw which they lifted plaintiff to a dangerous position causing fall head first to the ground which caused serious injure and he was forced to retire from the game at the pick of his career. In the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], Lord Atkins stated that “you must state reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.” In the case, it is considered as intentional tort of negligence from Jack and Bronco, according to the 3 elements of an action in negligence, it is clear that both the players who are defendant’s owed the duty of care, breach the duty of care and also make the plaintiff suffered the damage of injury by negligence of Jack and Bronco.
Conclusion:
Jack and Bronco they are liable to Daniel.
Remedies:
Jack and Bronco have to provide monastery compensation to Daniel because of them plaintiff got injured and also he could not play the game for his entire future which cause him great loss. Defendant’s have to pay for the medical cost for the injury of Daniel. Defendant’s are liable to the plaintiff as they intends to cause physical violence or knows, or ought to know that such harm is likely as a result of their actions.
Issue 2:
Is Parramatta Storms Rugby League Club (the “Parramatta Storms)” liable for the injury suffered by Daniel?
Law: Tort of negligence
The 3 elements of Negligence
-Duty of care
-Breach of the duty of care
-Damage of loss
Cases:
Green v Country Rugby Football League [2008] NSWSC 26
Roggenkamp v Bennett [1950] 80 CLR 292
Application:
Parramatta Storms Rugby League club is held liable to pay some or all of the compensation as defendant’s are engaging in an act which is the course of their employment. It is possible that a sporting association can be liable because Daniel while having a friendly game against the Parramatta Storms, he was tackled by the defendant’s who were the players of Parramatta Storms League Club. In Green v Country Rugby Football League [2008] NSWSC 26, Walmsely AJ, “in considering whether the League owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, listed a number of factors that led him to conclude that it did. The CRL did owe a duty to the plaintiff to take reasonable care a general duty of reasonable foreseeability. It can be seen that a coach fails to to supervise properly to the defendant’s from which plaintiff got injured, so the Parramatta Storms will be held liable for its employee’s negligence. Club falls under the law of tort of negligence and the 3 elements of negligence.
Defence:
Both the parties assumed the risk of being injured by playing the sports. Roggenkamp v Bennett [1950] 80 CLR 292 it was held that “it is up to the defendant to show that the plaintiff appreciated and freely consented to that risk.
Issue 3:
Is Western Tigers Rugby League Football Club (WTRLFC) liable for the inury and loss suffered by Daniel?
Law: Tort of negligence
The 3 elements of Negligence
-Duty of care
-Breach of the duty of care
-Damage of loss
Cases:
Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew [1994]79 CLR 370
Application:
When Daniel was having game with the Parramatta Storms he was playing as a friendly game and not in the course of competition league. In Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew [1994]79 CLR 370 “The High Court decided that the barmaid’s actions were outside the scope of her employment. Accordingly, Deatons was held not liable to Flew for damages. Therefore, Western Tigers Rugby League Football Club do not owe any duty of care to Daniel.
Defence:
WTRLFC did not fall under the 3 elements of negligence for Daniel. The reason for this case was Daniel he had a friendly game with Parramatta Storms.
Conclusion:
An employer is not liable for the actions of an employee that are not within the course of their employment so WTRLFC is not liable for the loss suffered by Daniel.
Question 2:
Issue 1:
Is Steve and George liable to Harry and Zara for their loss?
Law:
The 3 elements of Negligence:
– Duty of care
-Breach of the duty of care
-Damage
Case:
Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd [1964] CA 465
Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Counciln9No 1) [1981]HCA 59
Application:
When Harry discussed with his work mates and friends who were in various investment divisions in the bank and Steve who is a commercial lawyer and told Harry real estate market is the best investment where George who is a financial adviser agreed to Steve’s statement although he said that there is rumours about Federal Capital Gains taxes being increased to a higher rate. Despite Harry and his girlfriend Zara borrowed $650,000 from the bank and used this and their savings to buy property at Parramatta. But in April 2012, the government of New South Wales announced a mini budget and imposed a new land tax on all investment properties which causes the property market in Sydney collapses and they discover that their properties are less than 80% .The whole matter of economic loss or injury caused through careless statements was reconsidered by the House of Lords in Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. “ The court came to the conclusion that a negligent misstatement, whether spoken or written, could give rise to an action for financial loss”. In Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Counciln9No 1) [1981]HCA 59 “the High Court successfully held that a duty of care covered the giving that the recipient might act on such advice.” So it is clear that Steve has breached the duty of care and the loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of providing the negligent advice but George who is a financial adviser who told about the rumours of cons that is taxes will be increased to higher rate.
Conclusion:
Steve is liable to Harry but not to Zara.
George is not liable for the loss of Harry and Zara.
Remedies:
Steve has to provide monastery compensation to Harry because of his negligent misstatement Harry suffered a great economic loss.
Issue 2:
Is Steve and George liable to Hilary’s clinical depression?
Law:
The 3 elements of Negligence:
– Duty of care
-Breach of the duty of care
-Damage
Cases:
Hay (or Bourhill)v Young[1943]
Wikinson v downtown [1897]
Application:
When Harry passed all the information to Zara and she told her mother Hillary and she sold her bank shares and bought another property close to Parramatta, and due to the huge loss he was upset and as a result of the investment disaster Hilary suffers sever stress leading to clinical depression and she is unable to work in her usual occupation. In the case of Hay (or Bourhill)v Young[1943] “that the plaintiff suffered from nervous shock by the noise was foreseeable by the defendant”. Another case which is Wikinson v Downtown[1897] “the defendant told the woman that the husband got a serious accident than the wife got nervous shock and became ill”. In these both cases, the defendant was absolutely foreseeable to the plaintiff. However Hillary suffered clinical depression due to the investment disaster, therefore Steve and George do not fall under the tort of Negligence.
Defense:
Steve and George they are not liable to Hillary’s depression because it is occurred due to the huge economic loss.
Conclusion:
Both are not liable for Hillary.