Jones -v- Bartlett: landlords` liability to tenants and members of their household in negligence

According to the latest available statistics, in 1997-98, of the total of seven million Australian households, two million were renting their dwelling from a State housing authority or private landlords.Therefore, the decision on the scope of landlords' liability to tenants, members of their households, and guests in the right of the tenant handed down by the High Court of Australia in November 2000 was not only of legal, but also of social and economic significance. This note will discuss the Jones v Bartlett case in the context of the traditional common law approach to landlords' liability and the ground-breaking, if flawed, case of Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris.

Quo iure? Defendants' liability to rescuers in the tort of negligence

The year 2001 marks the 80th anniversary of Cardozo J's judgment in Wagner v International Railway Co 232 NY 176 (1921). This article examines theoretical and procedural problems associated with the concept of duty of care as a foundation for the defendant's liability in negligence to altruistic rescuers, and suggests that Cardozo J's judgment did not establish the principle that defendants owe rescuers a duty of care in negligence. It is argued that subsequent judgments failed to provide the duty of care owed to rescuers under tortious negligence with proper jurisprudential foundations. Conceptual difficulties inherent in a jurisprudential principle that would provide physically injured rescuers with a legal right to a duty of care from the defendant under the tort of negligence were compounded once compensation for negligently occasioned pure emotional distress became available. This article analyses various theories of recovery for pure psychiatric injury and the classification of rescuers into primary and secondary victims. It proposes a solution in the form of a separate cause of action on the case for liability to injured rescuers, partly based on the principle of necessity that governs the Roman action for negotiorum gestio. Cases from the United States, England and Australia are used to illustrate the similarities and differences in the development of and approaches to, the law of rescue.

Unsafe leased residential premises: a landlord's liability in negligence to injured occupants

This article examines the law relating to the liability of landlords in negligence for unsafe residential premises, focusing in particular on the recent High Court decisions in Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris and Jones v Bartlett. The author concludes that the High Court in Jones v Bartlett has placed sensible limitations on landlords' liability, by limiting liability to defects in the premises that were known or ought to have been revealed on a reasonable inspection by the landlord. The author points out that there are compelling policy considerations supporting the court's conclusion in that case that the landlord should not be required to arrange for the premises to be inspected by expert tradespeople.

Negligence and the wrongdoing plaintiff: a corrective justice analysis

 The thesis demonstrates that the only legitimate basis for denying a claim in negligence arising out of an unlawful act by the plaintiff is the need to preserve the coherence of the legal system.

The high court on vicarious liability

Vicarious liability (respondeat superior) is a venerable common law doctrine which holds an employer liable for the torts of employees, regardless of the fault of the employer. An employer's liability for the torts of its employees can represent a significant financial obligation and can affect both hiring and operational decisions of businesses. Vicarious liability is a prominent theme in the background of much litigation and is often the reason for litigating the issue of whether or not a worker is an employee. Vicarious liability may also arise through other relationships, such as partnership and agency. Two recent decisions by the High Court of Australia have drawn attention to the issue of vicarious liability. These decisions illuminate the High Court's view of vicarious liability's two main streams: negligence (Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd) n2 and intentional tort (NSW v Lepore). [*2] n3

Prosecuting corporations and officers for industrial manslaughter-recent Australian developments

There have been concerns for some time about whether breaches of duty that cause a worker's death are appropriately dealt with under occupational health and safety legislation, or whether criminal prosecution is warranted in those cases involving recklessness or gross negligence. Defaulting employers are rarely prosecuted under existing criminal laws and there are serious doctrinal barriers to finding a corporation guilty of mens rea offences.
The Australian Capital Territory leads the way in Australia with the recent introduction of new criminal offences of industrial manslaughter for corporations and their senior officers. These laws rely on concepts of corporate liability based on organisational responsibility and corporate culture in the model Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) , thus avoiding the limitations of the identification doctrine. Other active Australian jurisdictions, whilst initially open to the notion of industrial manslaughter laws, have preferred to make changes to existing OHS laws to deal with the problem of workplace fatalities.
Whilst it has its limitations, and applies only in Australia's smallest jurisdiction, the Australian Capital Territory legislation reflects a commitment to treating workplace deaths with the seriousness they deserve, and making it easier to prosecute corporations whose operations are conducted recklessly or with gross negligence.

Australian tort law reform: statutory principles of causation and the common law

By mid-2004, Parliaments in each Australian jurisdiction will either complete or will be in the process of partial codification of the law of torts. The reforms, including those to the law of negligence, are extensive. This article focuses on codification of the law of causation as an element of the cause of action in negligence. It examines the background to "tort reform", as the process has been labelled, and discusses the common law paradigm of negligence and various approaches to causation. It then analyses and compares the causation provisions in each jurisdiction.

Bryan the builder-residential work only

The High Court, in the 1995 landmark case of Bryan v Maloney, held a builder of a residential house liable to a subsequent owner for economic loss suffered by way of the reduction in value of the house caused by its defective foundations. Since that decision, several cases in state courts have indicated that any extension of the principle in Bryan to commercial properties is a matter for the High Court. This year, Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd provided the vehicle for the High Court to revisit the Bryan principle in a commercial context. Faced with the question 'can a subsequent owner of a commercial property who discovers faulty foundations sue the builder for the costs of fixing the problem before it causes any physical damage to person or property?', the resounding response from the High Court has been 'no'. Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ in a joint judgment and McHugh J and Callinan J in separate judgements rejected any 'extension' of the Bryan principle to commercial premises. Much to the relief of the construction industry, the Court made it clear that it will be difficult for a subsequent owner to make out a case in negligence against the original builder unless it can show special vulnerability to the risk of injury. Kirby J, in a dissenting judgment, suggested that the extension of liability to commercial builders fits quite comfortably with general principles and lamented the 'incremental' approach to liability presently favoured by the Court. Consequent upon the retirement of Gaudron J, Kirby J appears to be a lonely light on the hill, shining a solitary beacon on matters of principle.

The revisitation of Bryan has long been anticipated. However, Woolcock does not provide the solid bricks and mortar craved by the construction industry. Close examination of the reasoning of the Court suggests that it may itself rest on faulty foundations. In his dissenting judgment, Kirby J questions some of the assumptions made by the majority and highlights the deficiencies of the 'stated case' procedure for a re-examination of this particular area of law, thus suggesting that Woolcock may not be completely sound.

Is the treatment of economic loss by the Australian courts in torts cases anomalous?

The well developed economic theory of tort liability has never been able to comfortably accommodate negligence cases causing pure economic loss as opposed to physical damage or injury. In fact, contrary to received opinion, Australian Courts at least, are increasingly allocating pure economic losses to achieve predominantly an efficiency objective, with corrective justice notions relegated into the background. Consequently, it is difficult to classify these cases as anomalous in the sense of falling outside the efficiency paradigm.

Fat and the law: who should take the blame?

The incidence of obesity in both adults and children is rising at a rapid rate in most developed countries, including in Australia. Some obese people are seeking to place the blame for their condition on the fast-food industry, as demonstrated by the recent litigation in the United States brought by two obese plaintiffs against McDonald's. This litigation was unsuccessful, and on existing Australian negligence principles any similar litigation commenced here is likely to suffer the same fate. Principles of personal responsibility, autonomy and free will should prevail to deny a negligence claim. The risk of obesity and concomitant health problems from eating fast food to excess is an obvious risk which the plaintiff should not have ignored and which he or she has voluntarily assumed. It is for the Australian Government, not the courts, to regulate the behaviour of the fast-food industry. The government should take action by requiring all major fast-food chains to label their products with nutritional information, and by imposing restrictions on the advertising of food to children.

Obesity and the right to sue: would you like fries with that?

There is little chance that obese customers in Australia would fare any better in a claim against fast food companies than their counterparts in the US.

Why wrongful birth actions are right

A wrongful birth action is a claim in negligence brought by parents of a child against a doctor who has "wrongfully" caused their child to be born. These claims can be divided into two categories: those where a doctor performs a failed sterilisation procedure that leads to a healthy child being born; and those where a doctor fails to provide sufficient information to allow parents to choose to abort a handicapped child. The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 77 ALJR 1312 falls into the former category. The decision to allow the parents to receive damages for the costs of raising and maintaining their child has generated much public debate. Despite the endorsement of this "wrongful birth" action, there are indications that the legislature will overturn the decision. This article examines whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognising wrongful birth actions.