100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 33 - 35 out of 61 pages.
Held: The high court aid there was no breach of the duty of care. The risk was reasonably foreseeable, the probability of the risk occurring was, however, low. Though grave, the risk was of very low probability and a reasonable response to that risk did not demand the measures suggested by him. The RTA had foreseen the risk and erected signs warning peoplenot to jump in and the dangers associated. In this circumstance that was a reasonable response and the law demands no more, or no less. The gravity of the harm if an injury occurs The more serious the risk, the greater the need for precautions. This has relevance where: a)The activity is a dangerous b)The plaintiff has particular vulnerability Brakoulias v Karunaharan (ruling) Facts: Mrs Brakoulias suffered a cardiac arrest at age 50. She stopped breathing and was substantially deprived of oxygen for 26 minutes. As a result, she suffered serious long-term injuries, including loss of motor and cognitive functions, speech impairment, loss of memoryand other injuries. 4 months before she was prescribed a weight loss drug by her GP called Reductil, she took this up until her cardiac arrest. She alleged that Dr Karunaharan was negligent in prescribing her Reductil and that it caused her cardiac arrest and injuries. Held: the jury determined that Dr K had not been negligent in her management and treatment of Mrs Brakoulias and the proceeding was dismissed with costs. Paris v Stephey Borough Council Facts: the defendant (the employer) knew that the plaintiff (his employee) was blind in one eye. The plaintiffs condition was taken into account to determine whether the defendant was negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with goggles that would have protected him against injury to his good eye/ Held: the employer was in breach of duty of care owed to the employee. The burden of eliminating risk- the expense, difficulty and inconvenience One must balance the risks against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk Woods v multi-sport holdings Pty Ltd Facts: the market availability of a protective helmet was a critical issue in determining whether it was reasonable to expect the defendant, indoor cricket game organiser, to provide the player with such protective gear.Held: it was open for the trial judge to find that the defendant was not negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with a helmet. Wrongs Act s49 restates three common law principles relating to the reasonableness of the defendant’s response:
-Burden of taking precautions to avoid risk of harm includes the burden of taking precautions to avoidsimilar risks (do it National Park A you have to do it National Park B-Z)-The fact that the risk could have been avoided by doing something a different was does not of itself give rise to liability (hindsight is always 20/20)-The fact that subsequent action was taken does notconstitute an admission of liability Utility of the defendant’s conductWatt v Hertfordshire CC Facts: The claimant was a fireman. A woman had been involved in a traffic accident and was