|
Burnie Port Authority V General Jones Pty Ltd
''Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd''. is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia, which decided it would abolish the rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher'', and the '' ignis suus'' principle, incorporating them generally into the tort of negligence. Background Facts A fire, caused by an independent contractor's employee welding negligently, began on the defendant's premises and spread to a nearby property. The property was burnt causing A$2.5M of damages. The plaintiff sued under ''ignis suus'', nuisance, negligence and the rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher'' (a rule of strict liability),. interpreted in part through the duty of occupier to invitee. The defendant was Burnie Port Authority (Burnie), located in Burnie, Tasmania, who provided storage facilities, and the plaintiff was General Jones, who stored a large quantity of frozen vegetables. General Jones suffered damage when the vegetables were ruined by fire which destroyed Burnie property. Prior proceedings * ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Australia
The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia's Constitution. The High Court was established following passage of the '' Judiciary Act 1903''. It derives its authority from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it responsibility for the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Important legal instruments pertaining to the High Court include the ''Judiciary Act 1903'' and the ''High Court of Australia Act 1979''.. Its bench is composed of seven justices, including a Chief Justice, currently Susan Kiefel. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister and are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire earlier. The court has resided in Canberra since 1980, following the construction of a purpose-built High Court Building, located in the Parliamentary Triangle and over ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rylands V Fletcher
''Rylands v Fletcher'' (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.Bohlen (1911) 300 Rylands employs contractors to build a reservoir. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (). Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in ''Ryla ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
1994 In Case Law
File:1994 Events Collage.png, From left, clockwise: The 1994 Winter Olympics are held in Lillehammer, Norway; The Kaiser Permanente building after the 1994 Northridge earthquake; A model of the MS Estonia, which sank in the Baltic Sea; Nelson Mandela casts his vote in the 1994 South African general election, in which he was elected South Africa's first president, and which effectively brought Apartheid to an end; NAFTA, which was signed in 1992, comes into effect in Canada, the United States, and Mexico; The first passenger rail service to utilize the newly-opened Channel tunnel; The 1994 FIFA World Cup is held in the United States; Skulls from the Rwandan genocide, in which over half a million Tutsi people were massacred by Hutus., 300x300px, thumb rect 0 0 200 200 1994 Winter Olympics rect 200 0 400 200 Northridge earthquake rect 400 0 600 200 Sinking of the MS Estonia rect 0 200 300 400 Rwandan genocide rect 300 200 600 400 Nelson Mandela rect 0 400 200 600 1994 FIFA World Cu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Australia Cases
High may refer to: Science and technology * Height * High (atmospheric), a high-pressure area * High (computability), a quality of a Turing degree, in computability theory * High (tectonics), in geology an area where relative tectonic uplift took or takes place * Substance intoxication, also known by the slang description "being high" * Sugar high, a misconception about the supposed psychological effects of sucrose Music Performers * High (musical group), a 1974–1990 Indian rock group * The High, an English rock band formed in 1989 Albums * ''High'' (The Blue Nile album) or the title song, 2004 * ''High'' (Flotsam and Jetsam album), 1997 * ''High'' (New Model Army album) or the title song, 2007 * ''High'' (Royal Headache album) or the title song, 2015 * ''High'' (EP), by Jarryd James, or the title song, 2016 Songs * "High" (Alison Wonderland song), 2018 * "High" (The Chainsmokers song), 2022 * "High" (The Cure song), 1992 * "High" (David Hallyday song), 1988 * ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Transco Plc V Stockport MBC
is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher''. Facts Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Judgment The Lords held that because the quantities of water from an ordinary pipe is not dangerous or unnatural in the course of things, the council was not liable. Lord Hoffmann, however, remarked on the irony that had the pipe belonged to a ‘water undertaker’ s.209 Water Industry Act 1991 creates strict liability unless (with further irony) the loss is to a Gas Act 1986 company. Their Lordships protected the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher'' but within strict confines. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. Unlike the Australian High Court, whose abolition of the doctrine in ''Bu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Stevenson
was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to ''Donoghue v Stevenson'', liability for personal injury in tort usually depended upon sho ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Heaven V Pender
''Heaven v Pender'' (1883) (11 QBD 503, Court of Appeal) was an English tort law case, which foreshadowed the birth of the modern law of negligence. Facts Pender was the owner of a dry dock used for ship works, and Heaven was a ship painter who was using some staging slung over the side of a ship he was painting, supported by ropes. These ropes had previously been damaged and evidence showed that they were unfit for use. The painter was injured. Lawyer, Interrupted, accessed 19 January 2021 In a summary advanced in relation to a later House of Lords case, ''Caledonian Railway Co. v. Warwick (1897)'', Lord Herschell stated that the dry dock's supporting apparatus Judgment (Brett MR – minority):Court of Appeal The |
Full Court
A full court (less formally, full bench) is a court of law sitting with a greater than normal number of judges. For a court which is usually presided over by one judge, a full court has three or more judges; for a court which, like many appellate courts, normally sits as a bench of three judges, a full court has a bench of five (or more) judges. The expression originated in England but seems largely to have fallen into disuse there, and instead the technical term "divisional court" is used when referring to a multi-judge panel in the High Court of England and Wales. However, the term is still used in Scotland, such as in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and in many other Commonwealth jurisdictions, such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, etc. Although possible, a full court typically does not involve the participation of ''all'' the judges of the court, a practice known in the United States as the court sitting ''en banc''. An example of an exception, where ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negligence
Negligence (Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as ''negligence'' involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of ''carelessness'' possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Elements of negligence claims Some things must be established by anyone who wants to sue in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Nuisance
Nuisance (from archaic ''nocence'', through Fr. ''noisance'', ''nuisance'', from Lat. ''nocere'', "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects". ''Private nuisance'' is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the "right of quiet enjoyment" is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed. Definition Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (lan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
