Title: CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 Qld and The Changing Law of Negligence
1CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 (Qld) and The Changing
Law of Negligence
2- South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club
Limited v Cole (2002) - the voluntary act of drinking until
intoxicated.(is a).. deliberate act for which
that person should carry personal responsibility
in law
3- Queensland
- Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002
- Civil Liability Act 2003
- New South Wales
- Civil Liability Act 2002
- Civil Liability Amendment (Personal
Responsibility) Act 2002 - South Australia
- Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and
Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 - Victoria
- Wrongs and Other Acts (Public Liability Insurance
Reform) Act 2002 - Western Australia
- Civil Liability Act 2002
- Tasmania
- Civil Liability Act 2002
-
4(No Transcript)
5(No Transcript)
6(No Transcript)
7Application
- 9 April 2003 CLA received Assent
- 2 December 2002 Majority of provisions
commenced, except - Sections concerning the enhancement of public
safety, criminal behaviour, intoxication,
exemplary damages, structure settlements,
exclusion of jury trials and expressions of
regret - proportionate liability provisions which will
take effect on a date to be proclaimed
8- What Doesnt the CLA do?
- Create any new causes of action
- Codify the law relating to civil claims
- Apply to WorkCover injuries.
9- (1) A person does not breach a duty to take
precautions against a risk of harm unless - (a) the risk was foreseeable and
- (b) the risk was not insignificant and
- (c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in
the position of the person would have taken the
precautions. - (2) In deciding whether a reasonable person would
have taken - precautions against a risk of harm, the court is
to consider the following (among other relevant
things) - (a) the probability that the harm would occur if
care were not taken - (b) the likely seriousness of the harm
- (c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid
the risk of harm - (d) the social utility of the activity that
creates the risk of harm.
10Professional Responsibility
- No liability for professionals acting in manner
widely accepted in Australia by peer professional
opinion as competent professional practice. - Division does not apply to any duty to warn of
risk of personal injury/death from provision of
professional service. - Cf Bolam
- Rogers v. Whitaker
11Assumption of Obvious Risk
- Obvious risk means a risk that is obvious to a
reasonable person - includes patent/common knowledge risks.
- obvious even if low probability.
- obvious even if not prominent,conspicuous, or
physically observable. - Onus of proof shifts when volenti is pleaded.
- No duty to warn of obvious risks.
- No liability arising from inherent risk.
- Cf Woods v. Multisport / Borland v. Makauskas
12Dangerous Recreational Activities
- Defined as an activity engaged in for enjoyment,
relaxation or leisure that involves a significant
degree of risk of physical harm to a person - No liability for combination of obvious risk
- and dangerous recreational activity,
- regardless of whether the plaintiff was aware
- of the risk
13Enhancement of Public Safety
Civil liability does not attach to a person in
relation to an act done or omitted in the course
of rendering first aid or other aid or assistance
to a person in distress if (a) the first aid or
other aid or assistance is given by the person
while performing duties to enhance public safety
for an entity prescribed under a regulation that
provides services to enhance public safety
and (b) the first aid or other aid or
assistance is given in circumstances
of emergency and (c) the act is done or
omitted in good faith and without
reckless disregard for the safety of the person
in distress or someone else.
14GOOD SAMARITANS (PART 8)
A Good Samaritan cannot be held liable in respect
of any act or omission in an emergency when
assisting a person who is apparently injured or
at risk of being injured. The protection from
liability does not apply if 1. The Good
Samaritans act or omission caused the injury
or risk of injury to which he/she is
responding 2. Ability to exercise reasonable
care and skill was significantly impaired by
the influence of alcohol or drugs and failed to
exercise reasonable care and skill in
connection with the act or omission.
15 Volunteers
- A volunteer of a community organisation cannot be
held liable for an act or omission. - Does not apply if
- Conduct that constitutes an offence.
- Impaired by alcohol or drugs
- Acting outside scope of authority
- Liability required be insured against (CTP)
16Liability of Public Authorities
- Codifies recent NSW Court of Appeal decisions
relating to negligence and the duty of care owed
by highway authorities to pedestrians (Burwood
Council v Burns 2002 NSWCA 343 RTA v McInnes
2002 NSWCA 210 Richmond Valley Council v
Standing 2002 NSWCA 359). - Public Authorities The courts must take into
account the financial and other resources that
are reasonably available to the authority for the
purpose of exercising those functions. - Road Authorities not liable for harm arising
from the failure to carry out roadwork, unless at
the time of the alleged failure the authority had
actual knowledge of the particular risk the
materialisation of which resulted in the harm. Cf
Brodie and Ghantous
17Contributory Negligence
- Borland v. Makauskas QDC 30
- Burns v. BOC Gases WADC 50
- Cook v. Hawes NSWSC 75
- Court may reduce damages by 100.
18Intoxication
- Not necessary to anticipate intoxication.
- No higher standard of care than if was sober.
- 3. Contributory negligence of at least 25 will
be assumed (or 50 if BAC of 0.15 or greater).
19 Recovery by Criminals
- No liability if the Plaintiff was engaged in an
indictable offence when the harm occurred and - The illegal conduct materially contributed to the
risk of harm. - Criminal proof of indictable offence is not
necessary.
20Apologies and Expressions of Regret
- Does not constitute an admission of fault or
liability. - Not admissible.
21Thank You !