McLellan v Queensland Rail [2001] QCA 487
In McLellan v Queensland Rail, The Supreme Court of Queensland [MCMURDO P, MCPHERSON JA AND CULLINANE J] considered whether Queensland Rail was negligent for failing in their duty of care, to prevent the appellants, 12 year old John McClellan and 14 year old Matthew Brayton, riding trail bikes into a fire. The court considered the scope of duty of care to the children and whether this extended to erecting barriers in attempt to prevent them from access when they had a deliberate intent.
The judgement was handed down on 9th November 2001 in Queensland Court of Appeal.
Facts of the Case and Issues – 2 minors deliberately ride trail bikes into fire.
In the Queensland school holidays of September 1995 …show more content…
McMurdo P said that ‘warning signs were not warranted’ because the fire risk was so obvious to all. To ‘take reasonable care, not to prevent any and all reasonably foreseeable injuries’ is the standard of care required.’
R J Lynch, for the appellants raised McHale v Watson, however this case considers a child owing a duty of care, not someone owing care to the child as is the case of McClellan v Queensland Rail.
Romeo v Conservation Commission (NT), heard in the High Court, is the authority for this case, and was considered. In Romeo an intoxicated nearly sixteen year old young woman walked over the edge of a cliff at night time, having passed log vehicle barriers, knowing there was a cliff there. The risk was determined to be an obvious risk. Toohey J and Gummow J at [50] said the respondent was not obliged to ensure by whatever means possible someone is stopped from being injured due to ignoring obvious danger.
Were the actions of children beyond what is reasonable for children of that age
In McLellan v Queensland Rail, The Supreme Court of Queensland [MCMURDO P, MCPHERSON JA AND CULLINANE J] considered whether Queensland Rail was negligent for failing in their duty of care, to prevent the appellants, 12 year old John McClellan and 14 year old Matthew Brayton, riding trail bikes into a fire. The court considered the scope of duty of care to the children and whether this extended to erecting barriers in attempt to prevent them from access when they had a deliberate intent.
The judgement was handed down on 9th November 2001 in Queensland Court of Appeal.
Facts of the Case and Issues – 2 minors deliberately ride trail bikes into fire.
In the Queensland school holidays of September 1995 …show more content…
McMurdo P said that ‘warning signs were not warranted’ because the fire risk was so obvious to all. To ‘take reasonable care, not to prevent any and all reasonably foreseeable injuries’ is the standard of care required.’
R J Lynch, for the appellants raised McHale v Watson, however this case considers a child owing a duty of care, not someone owing care to the child as is the case of McClellan v Queensland Rail.
Romeo v Conservation Commission (NT), heard in the High Court, is the authority for this case, and was considered. In Romeo an intoxicated nearly sixteen year old young woman walked over the edge of a cliff at night time, having passed log vehicle barriers, knowing there was a cliff there. The risk was determined to be an obvious risk. Toohey J and Gummow J at [50] said the respondent was not obliged to ensure by whatever means possible someone is stopped from being injured due to ignoring obvious danger.
Were the actions of children beyond what is reasonable for children of that age