Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Parties
Party Tort Facts
NSW Parks and Breach of Statutory duty Statutory authority for Green
Wildlife Service Negligence National park
Legislated requirement for
responsibility for proper care and
maintenance of national parks and
wildlife
The South Coast Contributory negligence to Protested back-burning
Green Coalition (& fire
Ben Boyd)
Sam (Ranger) Intentional Torts (trespass Threatened Ben if you are not
to person Assault, careful, we might just burn off
Battery) anyway. Thats fix you and your
greeny mates
Was assaulted by Ben (Ben through
possum dung at him)
Ben (Protester) Intentional Torts (trespass Threatened by Sam
to person Assault, Battered Sam
Battery)
South Coast Branch Negligence Statutory authority that
of Rural Bush Fire recommended to GNP to back-burn
Service Has statutory discretion to require
hazard reduction
Did not choose to use this discretion,
did mail, but not formal application
to back-burn
Department of Main Negligence Forbidden to smoke
Roads Trespass to property Smoked anyway
May have caused bushfire
Carlo (Bushwalker) Death (re: who can sue) Died of smoke inhalation
Negligence Wife was dependant
Was in park
Sue (greenhouse Negligence Neighbouring land
owner) Trespass to Land Destroyed by fire
Harry (trailer park) Pure Economic Loss Fire reduced tourism reduced income
Minor Actions
Major Actions
Sue v NSW Parks and Wildlife Service (Negligence)
Elements
- Duty of Care
- Breach of Duty
- Causation
- Remoteness
Step by Step
Is it governed by the CLA? (s3B)
- All defendants are to be served (s35A), and damages apportioned as required by the court to a total of 100%
(s45) with no several liability (ss(4)) except for cases of personal injury (s34(1)a))
- GNP is only one of the concurrent wrongdoers in this matter (alongside South Coast Green Coalition, South
Coast Branch of Rural Bush Fire Service and the Department of Main Roads)
- Re: vicarious liability of DMR?
Duty of Care
Breach of Duty
Remoteness
- 5D(1)a factual causation
- 5D(1)b scope (duty of care did apply to this breach)
Defences
Inherent risk/Obvious risk?
- 5H/I
- More w regards to failure to warn
V DMR
- Vicarious Liability
- However, may not have caused the fire (there was a probability)
- Would fail under Causation
Other Plaintiffs
Carlo
- Died
- Family would sue under Compensation of Relatives Act
o Would be limited by S1
- Was in the park, therefore duty of care of NSWP/W would be definitely established
Harry
- Case of Pure Economic Loss (Not negligent Misstatement)
- Third-party injury under Pt 4 CLA
o Policy
Indeterminate liability
Not indeterminate since is identifiable (places who depend on park for income)