Application Of Act Of The Civil Liability Act

2623 Words11 Pages
PART 1 Application of Act s 3B of the Civil Liability Act excludes the circumstances where the CLA is not applicable, such as deliberate conduct intended to cause harm. The following cases deal with alleged negligence and do not fall into any of the categories. Thus the CLA applies to all four cases. Maurice v Fire Regulation Authority (FRA) Issue Whether or not FRA owes a duty of care to Maurice for pure psychiatric harm. Application of Act Maurice claimed for damages for mental harm caused by negligence, which satisfies the circumstances addressed in s 28 of the CLA. Thus Part 3 of the CLA applies to this case. 1.1 Reasonable Foreseeability It was a sudden shock when Maurice witnessed brumbies stampeded towards the victim at…show more content…
The FRA also had control over the situation as they could have informed Maurice about the exercise and its potential risk and they could have kept wild brumbies under surveillance. 1.3.3 Vulnerability Maurice was vulnerable to the harm because he was not aware of the fire-fighting exercise and the consequential risks and therefore could not be reasonably expected to safeguard himself from the harm. The FRA may argue that Maurice could have fenced the boundary. However, a stampede of wild brumbies would still have the power to run through, especially when they were escaping from fire. 1.3.4 Knowledge The FRA had the knowledge of the risk of harm as they had been informed the existence of brumbies in the area by local wildlife service. 1.3.5 Policy / Operation Distinction It was a policy matter because the decision to not to do surveillance to see where the animals are is made on account of budget constraints. However, in Crimmins it was held that a public authority can still owe a duty of care if its conduct of act creates a risk or increase the likelihood of a particular risk. 1.3.6 Statutory Scheme There is no conflict between imposing a common law duty and the primary duties given to the FRA by the statute. There are no other supervening reasons in policy to deny the existence of a duty of care. 1.4 Conclusion Considering the factors stated above, the FRA owes Maurice a duty of

More about Application Of Act Of The Civil Liability Act

Open Document