hi5018 introduction to business law week 4 law of torts (2)
TRANSCRIPT
2HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Occupier’s Liability
Occupier’s Liability Occupiers must take reasonable care and owe a common
law duty of care to ensure that anyone (even a trespasser) who comes onto those premises is not injured:
Hackshaw v Shaw (1984)
3HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Occupier’s Liability
Who is an occupier? An occupier is any person who has occupation or control,
whether it is partial or whole, of land or a structure standing on the land:
Consolidated Broken Hill Ltd v Edwards [2005]
4HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Occupier’s Liability
This tort is now part of negligence: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986)
Occupiers owe a duty of care to entrants to ensure they do not suffer injury on the premises.
Where the risk is obvious, the duty will be minimal.
5HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Occupier’s Liability
To establish occupier’s liability, a plaintiff must prove: The defendant has occupation or control of the land
or structure; and
The defendant was negligent,— that is, there was a duty of care owed that was breached and damage was sustained by the plaintiff.
6HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Product Liability (Defective Products) Manufacturer’s liability exists in both common law and
statute.
The defect must be hidden and unknown to the consumer:Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)
7HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Defective structures Where the premises suffer a defect and it could be
reasonably foreseen that a person could suffer injury as a result, the builder, architect or engineer may be liable if the plaintiff suffers damage as a result of the defect:
Bryan v Maloney (1995)
8HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Negligent misstatements
“a statement of fact, advice or opinion made in business that is relied upon by another but which is inaccurate or misleading”
9HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Negligent misstatements Duty on the defendant to avoid making careless
statements which cause harm.
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) established that the law
will imply a duty of care in the making of statements.
10HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Negligent misstatements A duty of care extends not only to professional
advisers but also to persons who provide information:MLC v Evatt (1968)
This duty of care also extends to advice that is given in ‘serious circumstances’: Shaddock v Parramatta City Council (1981)
11HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Negligent misstatements A duty of care also arises and exists where there is a
‘special relationship’ between the parties:
San Sebastian v Minister Responsible for Administering Planning and Assessment Act (1986)
12HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Negligent misstatements An inadequate response can amount to a negligent
misrepresentation if it is relied upon by the plaintiff:
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998)
13HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Categories of negligence
Negligent misstatements A plaintiff must establish the following to recover damages:
A duty of care - professional relationship or causal;
A breach of duty - D ought to have known that P would rely upon the statement and was requested for a serious purpose; and
Damage - causal connection between D’s omission and the damage suffered - the causative element.
14HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Employer liability
Employer liability or Vicarious liability Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability which has
the effect of making the employer an insurer of the employee.
15HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Employer liability
Employer liability or Vicarious liability An employer may be vicariously liable where an
employee acting in the course of their employment injures another person:Cassidy v The Minister (1951)
The action of the employee must be connected to the employment:Deatons Pty Ltd v Flew (1949)
16HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Employer liability
Employer liability or Vicarious liability An independent contractor cannot make
an employer vicariously liable.
An employer who is vicariously liable may have an action against the negligent employee for breach of a term of their contract of employment:Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage (1957)
17HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Intentional torts
Trespass Trespass is a direct interference with the person or
property of the plaintiff by the intentional or negligent actions of the defendant and is actionable per se (without proof of damage).
The defendant must have intended to do the harmful act.
18HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Intentional torts
Trespass to land Areas covered include:
• entry upon land without permission;
• remaining after permission has expired; and
• leaving things on the land.
19HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Defamation
What does defamation mean?
Defamation involves a false statement about a person that is likely to damage their reputation in the community.
20HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Defamation
Defamation action - What is required?
Step 1: Is the material defamatory? The material was defamatory according to its
‘ordinary and natural meaning’ and Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982)
in the circumstances was defamatoryMorosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB P/L (1980)
21HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Defamation
Defamation action - What is required?
Step 2: Does the material refer to P? The statement referred to or identified the plaintiff – or
it can be reasonably concluded that those who know P would conclude the statement is about P:
E Hulton & Co v Jones (1910)
22HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Defamation
Defamation action - What is required?
Step 3: Was the statement published? Made known to a third party capable of understanding
the defamatory meaning.
Step 4: Does D have any defences?
23HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Miscellaneous torts
Public Nuisance An unlawful act which interferes with an enjoyment
or right of the public, of which the plaintiff is a member, but one where the plaintiff can show that they have suffered special damage over and above that of the public.
The remedy for a plaintiff is usually damages and/or an injunction.
24HI5018 Introduction to Business Law
Holmes Institute 2011
Miscellaneous torts
Private Nuisance The person who has a legal right to actual possession
(occupier) of the land can complain and must establish:
• indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of their land by the defendant by things coming on to the land; and
• damage — either physical damage to land, buildings or goods or an interference with the enjoyment of the land.