Case analysis carey v lake macquarie
Ghantous also expresses that situational factors can mean obvious risks present a foreseeable risk of harm even to a person exercising reasonable care for their own safety.
It states that when a person does not exercise the standard of care of a reasonable person in their position, determined on the basis of what the person knows or ought to know, the person is guilty of contributory negligence. His Honour found the risk presented by the bollard would have been obvious to an experienced, mature cyclist, who knew of its existence.
Fallas v mourlas case summary
He claimed that the positioning and colour of the bollard, combined with the lack of light, presented a risk for cyclists at night. Similarly, in the case of Streller v Albury City Council  NSWCA , the court considered that the risk of injury from diving into a river of unknown depth was obvious to the plaintiff who was an experienced diver and was familiar with the undulation of the river level. However, the courts are very strict to limit the scope of these liability waiver provisions. Accepted common app essays However, David chose to do it by using the strong glue which causes all the damage. People trust that activities frequently carried out in a public area can be done with little risk of harm, and that authorities will control the area with this objective. This decision was correct because it is necessary to recognise that an injured party can contribute to their own harm. This argument gave rise to the second issue: if the respondent breached its duty of care, is the appellant guilty of contributory negligence, and to what extent?
How to cite this essay Choose cite format:. This issue was correctly decided because it is necessary for authorities to make public areas safe for their foreseeable users.
Conclusion Hence, David did breach the duty of care of Macquarie as he was the reasonable person who should foresee the damage and it is easy to eliminate the case. Examples of when a choice may be constrained include: Case analysis carey v lake macquarie, review Rating: 91 of based on votes.
Case analysis carey v lake macquarie
Defence: Voluntary Assumption of Risk To make out the defence of voluntary assumption of risk the principle is that the plaintiff must know about, fully appreciate, and voluntarily agree to, the risk. Please seek your own legal or financial advice for any questions you may have. Courts may not find that risks are obvious In casualty claims, the courts are becoming increasingly reluctant to find that the risks are obvious, even in circumstances where the plaintiff was clearly aware of the source of the risk. In brief - Courts may reduce damages due to contributory negligence While most Australian jurisdictions limit the liability and duty of care of a person in circumstances where there is obvious risk, the courts will determine each case on its facts. The appellant had crossed the path during the day, and had seen the bollard on numerous occasions. However, more then mere knowledge of a risk must be shown. In such cases, the onus becomes on the plaintiff macquarie demonstrate carey it was not aware of the risk, Voluntary A decision must be Case voluntary, and not constrained by circumstances. The appellant appealed on the issue of liability. Despite the plaintiff remarking "Oh, it's wet", the court found that understanding the risk of slipping on the travelator required an appreciation of slipperiness of the travelator, the lubricating effect moisture would have on her shoes and that the inclination of the travelator would exacerbate the risk. Courts may balance contributory negligence with obvious risk The varied outcomes in the cases illustrated above highlight that each case will turn on the detail of its facts.
It was accepted that its purpose was to prevent maintenance workers from driving on the path. Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the chain did not constitute an obvious risk.
based on 94 review