Chosen case: Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002)
In November 1996, Wallis Lake and the surrounding areas of the New South Wales experienced heavy rainfall that risked outspread of viral contamination of Hepatitis A in the Oysters which were cultivated in the same lake. Due to this contamination, many consumers ended up being the victim of the viral. The case was brought to action in the Federal Court of Australia. (High Court of Australia, 2002)
The case was instituted by Grant Ryan as a representative action in the Federal Court against Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd, Great Lakes Council and the State of NSW for negligence that caused illness to Ryan and others from eating Oysters from the Wallis Lake. (High Court of Australia, 2002) …show more content…
A tort is a legal wrong-doing which an individual or entity commits against some other personality and for which the typical remedy is an honor of being paid compensations. Many torts safeguard fundamental rights, for example private liberty, and fundamental privileges like property privileges. It also provides defense from interventions by other people or entities which also includes the Crown. To sum, torts law and regulations shield people from any misconduct by others and give plaintiffs a right to prosecute for recompense or perhaps an order to restrain the conduct. (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2017)
Tort of Negligence:
The acts leading to claims of damage or physical injury in a negligent torts are not deliberate. There are three specific elements that need necessarily be fulfilled in a claim of negligence (Legal Dictionary, 2017):
- The respondent must have a duty or owe a service to the plaintiff or victim
- The respondent must have miscarried that duty, or dishonored a commitment or obligation to the complainant
- The accuser must have agonized a genuine cost, physical harm, or damages that were unswervingly triggered by the petitioner’s misconduct, or a failure to act …show more content…
Barclay was equipped with the familiarity of outbursts of Hepatitis A on instances in other areas. Hepatitis A is a mainly hostile and unsafe illness. Through a blend of inspections and suspension of cultivating for a longer period, the danger could have considerably been minimized. As a company who grew and supplied oysters for commercial purposes, Barclay could and should be anticipated to deliver oysters which are healthy and safe. These facts led the trial judge to make what was essentially a ruling of fact that in failure to adopt such measures Barclay has been in a breach of assumed duty of care to the
In November 1996, Wallis Lake and the surrounding areas of the New South Wales experienced heavy rainfall that risked outspread of viral contamination of Hepatitis A in the Oysters which were cultivated in the same lake. Due to this contamination, many consumers ended up being the victim of the viral. The case was brought to action in the Federal Court of Australia. (High Court of Australia, 2002)
The case was instituted by Grant Ryan as a representative action in the Federal Court against Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd, Great Lakes Council and the State of NSW for negligence that caused illness to Ryan and others from eating Oysters from the Wallis Lake. (High Court of Australia, 2002) …show more content…
A tort is a legal wrong-doing which an individual or entity commits against some other personality and for which the typical remedy is an honor of being paid compensations. Many torts safeguard fundamental rights, for example private liberty, and fundamental privileges like property privileges. It also provides defense from interventions by other people or entities which also includes the Crown. To sum, torts law and regulations shield people from any misconduct by others and give plaintiffs a right to prosecute for recompense or perhaps an order to restrain the conduct. (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2017)
Tort of Negligence:
The acts leading to claims of damage or physical injury in a negligent torts are not deliberate. There are three specific elements that need necessarily be fulfilled in a claim of negligence (Legal Dictionary, 2017):
- The respondent must have a duty or owe a service to the plaintiff or victim
- The respondent must have miscarried that duty, or dishonored a commitment or obligation to the complainant
- The accuser must have agonized a genuine cost, physical harm, or damages that were unswervingly triggered by the petitioner’s misconduct, or a failure to act …show more content…
Barclay was equipped with the familiarity of outbursts of Hepatitis A on instances in other areas. Hepatitis A is a mainly hostile and unsafe illness. Through a blend of inspections and suspension of cultivating for a longer period, the danger could have considerably been minimized. As a company who grew and supplied oysters for commercial purposes, Barclay could and should be anticipated to deliver oysters which are healthy and safe. These facts led the trial judge to make what was essentially a ruling of fact that in failure to adopt such measures Barclay has been in a breach of assumed duty of care to the