text:
VIEWS: 283 PAGES: 38 POSTED ON: 5/14/2010 Public Domain
MONASH UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LAW JD LAW 7266 PRINCIPLES OF TORTS READING GUIDE Trimester 2 2009 Suzie Linden – Phone:0411442029 e-mail email@example.com Topics See Appendix One. Not all listed topics will be covered in detail. Topics of Primary emphasis are marked *. Case studies are included in the topics to be studied, to be used as background for seminars. However, it is contemplated that these topics may change from year to year to address current issues in tort law. Page references to "LH" are to the textbook: Luntz, Hambly et al, Torts:Cases and Commentary, 6th edition, LexisNexis, 2009 APPENDIX ONE – TOPICS COVERED 1. INTRODUCTION TO TORT LAW What is a Tort? Development of tort law The function of tort law Types of interests protected Relationship between torts and other areas of law Objectives of the law of torts – Tort Law reform – Ipp Report Role of insurance in tort law Remedies available when a tort has been committed. Categories of tort actions*. 2. INTENTIONAL TORTS - TRESPASS TO THE PERSON Battery* Assault* Statutory alternatives False Imprisonment* Action on the case: Intentional (non-trespassory) injury to the person* Defences* Remedies* 3. CONTROL AND PROTECTION OF GOODS Bailment* Trespass to Goods* Conversion* Detinue* Remedies* 4. RIGHTS AND DUTIES ASSOCIATED WITH LAND Trespass to Land* Private Nuisance * Defences* Remedies 2 5. THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE 5.1 General Principles / Wrongs and Other Acts (Law of Negligence) Act 2003 (Vic) 5.2 Duty of Care – General test for Establishing Duty of Care* 5.4. Breach of Duty of Care* - The reasonable person - Standard of Care - Causation and Proof – Res Ipsa Loquitur 5.5 Causation* – in fact - in law – Novus Actus Interveniens 5.6 Remoteness of Damage* 5.7 Vicarious Liability* Non-Delegable Duties of Care* 5.7 Defences* – Contributory Negligence - Voluntary Assumption of Risk - Illegality 5.8. Particular Duty Situations Nervous Shock* Rescuers* Omissions / Duties of Affirmative Action* Occupiers Liability Defective Products & Structures Pure Economic Loss Caused by Statements* - Tort of Deceit - Negligent Misstatements* Statutory Alternatives - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) /Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) Pure Economic Loss Occasioned by Negligent Acts* 6. Limitations, Contribution Between Tortfeasors 3 SEMINAR ONE – INTRODUCTION 1. Definition & Scope - What is a Tort? Development of tort law The function of tort law Types of interests protected Relationship between torts and other areas of law Objectives of the law of torts – Tort Law reform – Ipp Report Role of insurance in tort law Remedies available when a tort has been committed. Categories of tort actions*. LH: Ch 1 2. Trespass and the action on the case LH Ch 11 2.1: Trespass – Elements to Cause of Action 2.1.1: Direct act vs indirect Hutchins v Maughan,LH 579 Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd, LH 581 Scott v Shepherd, LH 581 2.1.2: actionable per se – burden of proof 2.1.3: Voluntary vs involuntary 2.1.4: Positive act vs passive conduct/omission 2.2: Battery - Application of force to person of another, manner of contact 2.2.1: Must the contact by angry or hostile? Cole v Turner, LH 590 Collins v Wilcock, LH 592 Wilson v Pringle, referred to in Rixon,LH 589 Rixon v Star City LH 589 2.3: Assault – Cause of Action 2.3.1: creation of reasonable apprehension of unlawful contact 2.3.2: apprehension vs fear 2.3.3: apprehension – objective test Brady v Schatzel [1911]SR Qd 206 2.3.4: apparent capacity vs actual capacity 4 2.3.5: effect of words – conditional threats Tuberville v Savage LH 593 Rozsa v Samuels LH 593 Rixon v Star City LH 589 2.3.6: mere words enough? Zanker v Vartzokas LH 594 Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWLR 451 2.3.7: statutory alternatives Crimes Family (Violence Act) 1987, ss3-5, 7, 22-23 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s21A – stalking, 5 SEMINAR TWO: TRESPASS TO THE PERSON 1. False Imprisonment 1.1: definition – total restraint of a person"s freedom of movement 1.2: total restraint – no reasonable means of escape, conditions as to exist Bird v Jones, LH 604 Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson LH 607 Herd v Weardale Steel Coke & Coal Co LH 609 Keng Feng Tan "A Misconceived Issue in the Tort of False Imprisonment", (1981) 44 MLR 166 Trindade, F., "The Modern Tort of False Imprisonment", in N. J. Mullany (ed) Torts in the Nineties, 1997,229 1.3: nature of restraint – physical/psychological Symes v Mahon, LH 605 McFadzean c CFMEU LH 605 1.4: knowledge of restraint Murray v Ministry of Defence, LH 611 1.5 directness of restraint Dickinson v Waters Ltd LH 614 Myer Stores Ltd v Soo LH 615 2. Action on the case – Intentional Infliction of Injury LH – 619-627 2.1: Definition: an intentional act calculated to cause damage and damage so caused Bird v Holbrook (1828) 130 ER Wilkinson v Downtown LH 619 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Naidu, LH 623-6 6 2.2: intentional infliction of injury – implied from malice or reckless indifference Carrier v Bonham LH 620 Hanford D, "Wilkinson v Dowtown and Acts Calculated to Cause Physical Harm" (1985) UWALR 31 3. Trespass to the Person : Defences LH Ch 13 3.1: Consent 3.1.1: form, scope – cover the act in question McNamara v Duncan LH 656 3.1.2: real vs fraud, duress, incapacity, mistake Latter v Braddell LH 660 3.1.3: medical practice - overlap between trespass vs negligence Chatterton v Gerson LH 658 Rogers v Whitaker LH 658 3.1.4: minors – vs parental/court Department of Health v JWB (Marion"s Case) LH 664-5 3.1.5: refusal of consent, legislative provisions LH 660-661 3.1.6: revocation of consent Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson LH 607 3.2: Defence, Defence of Another & Defence of Property 3.2.1: reasonable conduct Proportionality Fontin v Katapodis LH 671 Rozsa v Samuels LH 593 Zecevic v DPP LH 672 Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police, LH 674-5 3.2.2: defence of others Goss v Nicholas LH 672 3.2.3: protection of property 7 3.3: Necessity 3.3.1: imminent danger 3.3.2: reasonable necessity – to avoid greater peril 3.3.3: no contrary policy considerations Southwark London Borough Council v Williams LH 669 3.3.4: public necessity, private necessity 3.3.5: personal protection Scott v Shephard, LH 581 3.3.6: protection of others Proudman v Allen LH 670-1 3.3.7: prevention of suicide Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s463B 3.3.8: medical necessity Murray v McMurchy LH In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation), LH 667 Part 4A – Guardiaship and Administration Act 1986n (Vic) Medical treatment Act 1988 (Vic) ss 3, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6 3.4: Lawful Authority – Arrest 3.4.1: powers of arrest Crimes Act 1958, ss 457-459; 461-2, 464A 3.4.2: mode of arrest – common law Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573, per Viscount Simon 587-8, Lord Simonds 591-3 LH 676-7 Dallison v Caffery [1965] 1 QB 348, per Denning MR, 365-7 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s464A 3.5: Inevitable Accident McHale v Watson LH 584 3.6: Contributory Negligence Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) ss25-26, LH 322 Horkin v North Melbourne Football & Social Club LH 675 8 4. Other Aspects of Trespass - Intentional and Unintentional Acts 4.1: Is intention an essential element of the tort of trespass – UK vs Australia England: Fowler v Lanning LH 583-4 Letand v Cooper LH 585 League Against Cruel Sports v Scott, LH 585 Australia: Williams v Milotin LH 582 McHale v Watson LH 584 Stingel v Clark, LH 586, 602 4.2. Highway cases: Venning v Chin LH 585-6 4.3. Future Directions Platt v. Nutt LH 586-7 4.4. Impact of Civil Liability Legislation: Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 28C, s28LC, LH 589 5. Remedies 5.1: Damages – Nominal, Compensatory, Aggravated, Exemplary 5.2: Injunction 6. Statutory Alternatives to trespass to the person 6.1: Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987 (Vic), ss3-5, 7, 22-23 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s21A (Stalking) 6.2: Alternative Sources of Compensation Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) 9 SEMINAR TWO – CASE STUDY You are asked to advise Max as to his common law rights and liabilities (if any) arising from the following incidents. While Max was refuelling his car at a country service station, another motorist, Peter, who was also refuelling his car, noticed Max was smoking. Max was intoxicated and swore at Peter when asked to extinguish his cigarette. Peter, fearing an explosion, jumped at Max, knocking the cigarette from Max"s lips, stamping on it and kicking it under Max"s car. Max was furious as it was his last cigarette. He threatened Peter, telling him that he"d break his neck if Peter didn"t go and buy him another packet of cigarettes. Peter retreated quickly to the service station office to summon the owner. [8 marks] Peter"s girlfriend, Pru, was alarmed. She tried to get out of Peter"s car to follow Peter to the office, but was stopped by Max leaning against her door. Max swore at Pru, telling her to "stay put if you know what"s good for you". Pru was too scared to try leaving the car again and instead locked both car doors for added protection from Max. [6 marks] When Peter returned to find Max leaning on his car, he pushed Max aside and helped Pru out of the car. The service station owner, Con, told Max to leave the service station and go sober up for his own good. Max took no notice and continued arguing with Peter. Con, with Peter"s assistance, took Max by the arm and escorted him a short distance to a nearby police station. Max was not charged with any offence and later reclaimed his car, threatening legal action. [6 marks] 10 SEMINAR THREE – PROTECTION OF GOODS Supplementary Materials SM 1. Bailment 1.1. Definition 1.2. Duties of bailees Ashby v Tolhurst SM1 Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd SM 4 2. Trespass to Goods 2.1. Cause of action – "unauthorised direct and intentional interference with possession of goods " Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliot SM 17 2.2. Standing to Sue? – actual/constructive possession/immediate right to possession 2.3. Can trespass to goods occur unintentionally? Everitt v Martin SM 21 3. Action on the case 3.1. remedy for permanent damage 3.2. Accidental harm - Mears v London & Southern Western Railway Co, SM 22 3.3. Intentional damage - Hurrell v Ellis SM 23 Penfolds Wines v Elliot, per Dixon J SM 23 4. Conversion 4.1. Cause of Action – "Dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with rights of true owner" 4.2. Standing to Sue – possession or immediate right to possession at time of conversion International Factors Ltd v Rodriguez [1978] 3 WLR 877 SM 40 4.3. Conduct amounting to act of conversion 4.3.1. taking possession or dispossession Fouldes v Willoughby SM 32 4.3.2. withholding 4.3.3. dealing & assertion of a proprietary right Oakley v Lister SM 30 11 4.3.4. transfer of possession 4.3.5. destruction, loss, alteration or damage 4.3.6. wrongful use of goods Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliot, SM 34 4.4. Defendant"s state of mind Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Finch, SM 35 Willis v British Car Auctions Ltd, SM 37 5. Detinue 5.1. Cause of action – "wrongful detention of, or refusal to return, a chattel to a person entitled to possession of it after a request for its return had been made" 5.2. Onus of proof Houghland v RR Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd SM 24 6. Remedies for conversion & detinue 6.1. assessment of damages Greenwood v Bennettt [1972] 3All ER 586 SM 42 12 SEMINAR THREE – CASE STUDY James Armstrong is the proprietor of Prestige Motors in Melbourne, which only sells "collectors" models" of well-known European cars like Porsche, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi etc. On 1st January 1999, Richard Nixon, posing as a doctor, obtained a special model BMW from Armstrong on hire purchase as follows: Cost of car: $180,000… Nixon has paid: $30,000. Balance of $150,000 to be paid in fifteen monthly instalments of $10,000 each commencing 1st February 1999. Car to belong to Armstrong until all instalments are paid and hirer not to loan, sell or dispose of car until all instalments are paid. On 2nd February 1999 Nixon, who has driven the car to Sydney, changes its number plates and forges its registration certificate in a way that cannot easily be detected and then sells the car to Mike Smith, proprietor of Super Motors, a well-known Sydney car dealer. On 15th February since Nixon"s first instalment was not received, Armstrong had sent a certified letter to the Melbourne address given by Nixon, but the letter had been returned with the endorsement "no such person at this address". On 23rd February, Armstrong received an anonymous telephone call saying, "your missing BMW is at Super Motors, Sydney". The next day Armstrong flies to Sydney. He borrows his brother-in-law"s Mercedes Benz and goes to the Super Motors office and showroom. Unable to spot the BMW, he asks for the owner. He tells Mike Smith that he had learnt that his BMW was at this showroom. Mike Smith is not helpful and tells Armstrong, "I don"t know what you are talking about. If you have any problems about a missing car, go tell the police". When Armstrong replies, "I think you are lying, I know you"ve got the car", Mike Smith extends his fist to punch Armstrong who steps back, knocks over some boxes and falls on the floor. As Armstrong is getting up, Mike Smith together with his assistant, Andrew pushes Armstrong into an adjoining enclosed room and locks the door, saying, "wait there "til I get some of my mates. Then we will really fix you up". After about ten minutes the door is opened and the police are there. Mike Smith had telephoned them. The police take statements from both parties but decide not to press charges saying that it was a civil dispute. Armstrong drives back to his brother-in-law"s house to find that the Mercedes Benz had been badly scratched on the left hand side with some metal by some employee of Super Motors while he was there. The next morning while still in Sydney the police inform Armstrong that the BMW is at Express Garages in Sydney. Although it has a new number plate, the engine number was that given by Armstrong. Armstrong contacts Express Garages and claims the car. They tell him that it had been given to them for a repaint and some minor repairs by Super Motors. They have done work to the value of $5,000 on it and if he wants the car, he must pay the $5,000 and bring a letter from Mike Smith. Advise Armstrong of his legal rights (if any). Richard Nixon cannot be found. There is a well-known agency called "Car Lovers" in Queensland which has a computerised inventory of the ownership of all prestige cars and this particular BMW was in that inventory. If further facts are necessary to develop your answer, state them. 13 SEMINAR FOUR – PROTECTION OF GOODS (Continued) & LAND 1. Land 1. Trespass to land 1.1. Cause of action : positive conduct causing direct interference with another"s possession of land 1.2. types of interference/nature of defendant"s conduct League Against Cruel Sports v Scott, LH 585 1.3. Continuing trespass Konskier v B Goodman Ltd, LH 631 1.4. Meaning of "land" Berstein v Skyviews & General Ltd, LH 644 LJP Investments Pty Ltd v Howard Chia Investments Pty Ltd, LH 646 Wrongs Act (Vic) 1958, ss 30, 31 1.5. Standing to Sue Newington v Windeyer, LH 642 1.6. Defences - Consent: Express & Implied Licence Halliday v Nevill LH 632 Lincoln Hunt Australia Pty Ltd v Willessee, LH 637 Rinsale Pty Ltd v ABC, LH 639 ABC v Lenah Meats Pty Ltd LH 640 1.7. Revocation of consent Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd,LH 630 [12.2.4] and 651 [12.5.4] 14 2. Private Nuisance 2.1. Purpose – remedies for unreasonable interference with the beneficial use and enjoyment of land 2.2. Standing to Sue Oldham v Lawson (No 1) LH 692 Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd LH 686 2.3. Substantial and unreasonable interference 2.3.1. physical damage St Helen"s Smelting Co v Tipping LH693 2.3.2. non-physical damage 2.3.3. interference with use and enjoyment via sensibilities, eg smell, noise, etc Walter v Selfe LH 693 Munro v Southern Dairies Ltd, LH 693 Seidler v Luna Park Reserve Trust LH 697-8 2.3.4. malice on the part of the defendant Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett, LH 698 2.4. Interests Not Protected 2.4.1. Freedom from observation Victoria Park Racing Co Ltd v Taylor, LH 701 2.4.2. Interference with television reception Hunter v Canary Wharf LH 686 Who can be Sued? – Persons Legally Responsible 2.5.1. Creators of Nuisance Fennell v Robson Excavations Pty Ltd, LH 704 2.5.2. Continuing and adopting a nuisance Sedliegh-Denfield v O"Callaghan, LH 708 Hargrave v Goldman, LH 709 2.6. Defences 2.6.1. Coming to the Nuisance Miller v Jackson, LH 722 2.6.2. Statutory Authorisation 15 Lester-Travers v City of Frankston, LH 715 2.7. Remedies 2.7.1. Abatement (self help)- LH 728 2.7.2. Damages – LH 728 2.7.3. Injunction LH 730 Miller v Jackson LH 722 Kennaway v Thompson LH 730 16 SEMINAR FOUR– CASE STUDY Recently, Amanda"s unmarried brother Bart was discharged from an alcoholic rehabilitation centre. To assist with his rehabilitation, Amanda purchased an outer suburban home with a semi-country atmosphere for herself and Bart to live. On their first morning at the new house, Amanda and Bart were awoken at 5.00 am by a strange cooing noise. To her horror, Amanda saw hundreds of pigeons swooping over her front lawn. The pigeons were owned by her neighbour, Colin. Over the following weeks, Amanda and Bart, who are light sleepers, were constantly woken early, sometimes before dawn, by the noise of Colin"s pigeons. The pigeons droppings soiled clean washing on Amanda"s clothesline and some built nests in Amanda"s chimney, causing blockage. Amanda complained to Colin and asked him to take charge of his birds. She is a tolerant person, but was concerned that the disturbance was adversely affecting Bart"s health. She explained Bart"s condition in some detail but Colin simply dismissed her request saying, "it"s good for the body to wake up early". Bart"s emotional condition deteriorated due to the pigeons and he became agitated. Armed with a box of poisoned bird seed he clandestinely entered Colin"s property and emptied the poisoned seed into Colin"s pigeon feed barrel. Later, Colin fed the poisoned seed to his birds and several prize birds died. Elated, Bart sought to repeat the procedure but was caught by Colin as he entered the pigeon house. Colin grabbed the box of seed from Bart"s hands, yelled at Bart and stalked off to contemplate his revenge. Over the next month, Colin telephoned and awoke Bart at midnight, threatening in menacing tones to poison Bart if he went anywhere near the pigeons again. Overcome by fear, Bart broke down and sobbed during these conversations, much to Colin"s delight. As a result, Bart has become extremely nervous and seldom steps outside for fear he might brush against or injure one of Colin"s pigeons. Advise Colin as to his liability (if any) to (I) Amanda and (ii) Bart. Also advise Bart as to his liability (if any) to Colin. 17 SEMINAR FIVE - NEGLIGENCE : Duty of Care 1. Duty of Care LH Ch 2 Wrongs Act 1958, Part X - Negligence, Divisions 1 & 2.S43 1.1 Wrongs and Other Acts (Law of Negligence) Act 2003 (Vic) – thresholds 1.2 Overlap with Contract Law 1.3 Donoghue v Stevenson LH 102-6 1.4 Historical Origins/General concept Heaven v Pender referred to in Donoghue v Stevenson Donoghue v Stevenson LH 102-6 1.5 Reasonable Foreseeability of harm Chapman v Hearse LH, 130 Caterson/ Commissioner for Railways (NSW) LH 132 1.6 Foreseeability of Vulnerable Bourhill v Young LH 138 Chester v Waverley Municipal Council LH 138 Haley v London Electricity Board LH 360 2. "Proximity" Concept and Policy Considerations LH 147-9 Jaensch v Coffey, LH 149 Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman LH 147 Gala v Preston, LH 149 2.1. Evaluation of Current Approach Sullivan v Moody LH 113-16 Tame v NSW/Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited [2002] HCA 35 (see last section of class materials) LH 445-52 3. No Duty Situations – Policy Considerations 3.1. Military Shaw Savill & Albion Co Ltd v The Commonwealth, LH 166 3.2. Barristers D"Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid, LH 153 3.3. Parents Robinson v Swincer, LH 418-20 18 BREACH OF DUTY Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), Part X, Division 2 & 5. SS 48-50, 56-60, 14G LH Ch 3 1. Standard of Care 2. What is negligent conduct? Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co LH 171 3. The "Reasonable Person" 3.1.1 Objective vs Subjective standard Vaughan v Menlove LH 171 3.1.2: Minors McHale v Watson LH 209-11 3.1.3 Disability Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust, LH 212 3.1.4 Inexperience/Modified Duty/Consensual relations Imbree v McNeilly LH 222-26 3.1.5. Situations requiring no special skills – ordinary reasonable person Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, LH 171 3.1.6: Defendant"s special knowledge, skill and expertise Phillips v Whiteley Ltd LH 227 3.2. Time when defendant"s conduct is judged Roe v Minister of Health LH 200 3.3. Foreseeability – what risks are reasonably foreseeable? Wyong v Shirt LH 176-77 4. 5. Calculus of Negligence Wyong Shire Council v Shirt LH 176 Woods v Multi Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460 (460-484) 4.1 Likelihood/Probability of risk occurring Bolton v Stone LH 184 19 4.2 Gravity of Consequences186-7 Paris v Stepney Borough Council, LH 4.3 Burden of Taking Precaution/Conflicting Duties 4.3.1 Cost & Practicality of taking alleviating action Caledonian Colleries Ltd v Speirs LH 199 4.4.2: Importance of Activity/ social utility Watt v Hertfordshire County Council, LH 198 4.4.3: Common Practice Mercer v Commissioner for Road Transport & Tramways (NSW) LH 203 4.4.4: Common Medical practice Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, referred to in F v R, LH 219 Rogers v Whitaker, LH 215-18 Percival v Rosenberg HCA 2001 219-21 2.4.5: Legislative Standards Tucker v McCann, LH 547-8 5: Proof of Negligence Burden of Proof Holloway v McFeeters, LH 237-39 Circumstantial evidence – Res Ipsa Loquitur Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings LH 240-43 20 SEMINAR SIX – NEGLIGENCE – Causation, Remoteness of Damage, Case Study LH Ch 4 & 5 Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), Part X, Division 3. S 51,S52. Causation LH Ch4 1: Causation – Tests – But For test Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, [1969] 1 QB 428 March v Stramare, LH 251-55 Chappel v Hart LH 256,259 1.1: Increased Risk McGhee v National Coal Board, LH 262 Chappel v Hart, LH 259 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL, LH 262 1.2: Take Plaintiff as you find them Performance Cars Ltd v. Abraham, LH 268-9 1.3. Successive Injuries Baker v Willoughby LH 272 1.4 . The Vicissitudes Principle Jobling v Associated Dairy LH 273-6 Faulkner v Keffalinos LH 276-7,285 2: Novus Actus Interveniens Haber v Walker, LH 281-84 Mahoney v Kruschich LH 287 March v Stramare Bennett v Minister for Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408 , LH 278,282 3. Remoteness of Damage Wrongs Act 1958 Vic), S 51(1)(b) & (4) LH Ch 5 3.1: Test – Reasonable foreseeability of the Same Kind of Harm Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering, (Wagon Mound 1) LH 296-98 3..2: Reasonable Foreseeability Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering, (Wagon Mound 2) LH 301-2 3.3: Manner and Type of Harm 21 Hughes v Lord Advocate LH 305 Mt Isa Mines v Pusey LH 311-12 Tremain v Pike, LH 311-12 Doughty v Turner, LH 311-12 Nader v Urban Transit Authority, LH 316-17 Versic v Connors, LH 306 3.4: Extent of Harm – Thin Skull Rule Stephenson v Waite Tileman, LH 307-8 SEMINAR SIX– CASE STUDY Allan, a wealthy businessman plans to host a big reception in his home for Marcello, who has just won an Olympic gold medal for weight lifting (heavyweight division). He commissions Rockwood, an architect to design a big stage to be erected on the front lawn of his house. As part of the celebrations, Marcello will attempt a world record in weightlifting on the stage. Rockwood draws up the plans and specifications for the stage and submits them to the Waverley Council for approval. Dillon, the Council"s Building Inspector, passes the plans. Dillon is a very overworked employee who lacks the relevant qualifications as a Building Inspector. However, the Council, because of financial stringency, decides not to employ a fully qualified inspector. A fully qualified inspector on a careful inspection of the plans and specifications would have realised that the stage, when constructed, would not be able to sustain the minimum weight per square metre as prescribed by the Council"s by-laws. After the stage has been built by the building contractor in accordance with the plans and specifications, Rockwood visits and gives the stage a cursory examination. He then informs Allan that he is very pleased with the structure. Dillon, because he is so overworked, decides not to inspect the completed stage. On the day of the celebrations, a number of local dignitaries, including Allan and Mayo, the Mayor, are seated on stage to watch Marcello"s attempt at the world record. On his first attempt, Marcello stumbles and crashes to the floor and is pinned down under the weights. The impact causes the stage to collapse. Mayo, after extricating himself from the wreckage, tries to lift the weights to free Marcello. In the process, Mayo wrenches his back. Allan suffers severe head injuries as a result of the collapse of the stage. Mina (Marcello"s wife), who is watching the live telecast of the celebrations in her home (located 400 km away from Allan"s house) suffers a nervous breakdown at the sight of her husband pinned down under the weights. Advise Allan, Mayo and Mina as to whether they have any causes of action in tort, and if so, against whom they should bring proceedings. 22 SEMINAR SEVEN– NEGLIGENCE – VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NON- DELEGABLE DUTIES OF CARE 1. Vicarious Liability / Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), Part X, Division 5. s 61 1.1. Master-Servant/Employer – Employee relationship Hollis v Vabu LH 807 Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths LH 817 1.2. Scope of Employer's Responsibility – For what acts of the employee is the employer responsible? 1.2.1. Performance of tasks in an unauthorised/prohibited manner Bugge v Brown LH 819 Beard v London General Omnibus LH 821 Limpus v London General Omnibus Co, LH 821 1.2.3. Servant commits assault Deatons Pty Ltd v. Flew LH 824 Bazley v Curry, NSW v Lepore; Samin v Qld; Rich v Qld [2003] HCA 4, LH 828 1.2.5. Dishonesty by employee Lloyd v Grace Smith & Co LH 829-32 Morris v. C.W. Martin & Sons Ltd SM 4 Paine, T., "Employer"s Vicarious Liability" (2003) Plaintiff 23 White, S., & Orr, G., "Precarious Liability: The High Court in Lepore, Samin and Rich on school responsibility for assaults by teachers" (2003) 11 Torts Law Journal 101 Wangmann, J., "Liability for Institutional Child Sexual Assault: Where does Lepore leave Australia?" (2004) 28 MULR 169 2. Personal "Non-Delegable" Duties 2.1. General principles - Employer's non-delegable duty to employee Kondis v. State Transport Authority LH 851-3 2.2. School"s non-delegable duty to its students Commonwealth v Introvigne LH 854 NSW v Lepore; Samin v Qld; Rich v Qld [2003] HCA 4, LH 854-5 2.3. Occupier"s non-delegable duty to neighbours Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty Ltd LH 848 2.4. Occupier"s non-delegable duty inapplicable to entrants Jones v Bartlett LH 856, 120 Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic); s61, Liability based on non-delegable duy 23 4 Principal and Agent Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd LH 843-6 24 SEMINAR EIGHT– NEGLIGENCE : DEFENCES LH Ch 6 1. Contributory Negligence Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) , ss. 25-26, SS 62-63 Part X, Division 7 Froom v. Butcher LH 327 Caterson v Commissioner for Railways LH 332 Pennington v Norris LH 329 2. Voluntary Assumption of the Risk: Volenti Non Fit Injuria / Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), Part X, Division 4. SS53-55 Scanlon v American Cigarette Company Overseas Pty Ltd LH 344 Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v. Shatwell LH 347 Kent v. Scattini LH 350 Insurance Commissioner v Joyce LH 348 2. Illegality Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), S 14G Henwood v. Municipal Tramways Trust (S.A.) LH 456 Gala v. Preston LH 149 Italiano v. Barbaro LH 437 3. Volunteers and Good Samaritans Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), ss31A, 31B, 33-40 4 Limitation of Actions Limitations of Action Act (Vic) 1958, ss 5(1), 5(1AA) 5.Contribution & Indemnity between Tortfeasors A defendant"s right of contribution is not actually a defence against the plaintiff"s claim, but rather a claim by a defendant against another co-defendant(s) aimed at apportioning part of the blame (and responsibility for damages) onto other defendants. This right arises under statute law : see Wrongs Act (Vic) 1958 ss 23B,24 25 SEMINAR 8 - CASE STUDY Jack is fourteen years old and too young to hold a driver"s licence. He has, however, extensive driving experience and is a competent driver. He has demonstrated his driving competence to his fourteen year old friend Ben. Jack"s sister lets Jack drive her taxi in return for cleaning it. One day Jack and Ben decided to take the taxi to their local suburban hotel and together consumed twelve bottles of beer each over two hours. They staggered from the hotel unsteadily holding each other up and singing silly songs. Jack stumbled into the driver"s seat and the taxi weaved down the road to be hailed by Mrs Jones, who was shepherding home her intoxicated husband. Mrs Jones gave her address to Jack through the car window to which Jack strangely replied, "I"ll take you to the stars". She looked at him more closely, noticing that he looked very young, dishevelled and smelt faintly of alcohol. But Mr Jones had already stumbled into the car oblivious of everything. A car accident ensued with injuries to Mr and Mrs Jones. The Joneses were pulled from the car by bystanders. A police siren was heard. "Let"s get out of here", shouted Ben as a police vehicle converged upon them. Jack accelerated as the police car signalled that they pull over. "Faster", shouted Ben, and Jack accelerated further. The car skidded off the road, crashed into a tree and Ben sustained head injuries. Jack admits that his negligence in driving under the influence of alcohol caused the accidents. Both Jack"s and Ben"s blood alcohol levels were found to be 0.1% at the relevant time. Advise Jack: (i) who may bring negligence actions against him and in respect of which conduct; and (ii) what defences he may raise to any negligence actions brought against him. 26 SEMINAR NINE – SPECIAL DUTY CATEGORIES 1. Nervous Shock –Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), Part XI LH 7.11 Mount Isa Mines v Pusey, LH 445 Tame v NSW; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited [2002]HCA 35, LH 445-52 Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269. 2. Rescuers LH 7.10 Haynes v Harwood, LH 442 Chapman v Hearse LH 130 27 SEMINAR NINE – CASE STUDY 1. Sweet-Pea nagged her father, Popeye, for months to allow her to go on a camping expedition. Eventually Popeye begrudgingly agreed. The trip is organised by Outdoor Leadership Inc – a group whose objective is to cultivate leadership qualities in young people by teaching them outdoor survival skills. Sweet-Pea is 12, but under federal law, the legal age at which children are permitted to go on trips run by OLA and similar groups is 13. The organiser of the trip tells Popeye to state that Sweet-Pea is 13 on the application form, so that there are no problems with the age requirement. Due to the negligence of the expedition organisers, Sweet-Pea becomes separated from the group and goes missing. A major aerial and land search is initiated and live television coverage broadcasts footage of the rugged terrain and says that the weather conditions are worsening by the minute. The broadcasts also show library footage of another search that had been conducted in the same area the year before, with the (dead) body of the lost person being carried out of the forest covered in a blanket. Popeye is so distraught by the whole affair that he does not pay attention when the "library footage" note comes up on the screen and he thinks they have found Sweet-Pea dead. Popeye falls into a dissociative and depressive state as a result of the shock of seeing the dead body on the stretcher and because he feels so guilty about having allowed Sweet-Pea to go on the trip. His condition lasts 10 months. Sweet-Pea is missing for a total of four days but is eventually found completely unharmed. Can Popeye sue the Outdoor Leadership Adventures Inc? 28 SEMINAR TEN– NEGLIGENCE: Special Duty Categories Omissions - Duties of Affirmative Action – LH 7.7 1 Creation of danger 2 1.1 Defendant has control of the situation Goldman v Hargrave LH 413 1.2. Reasonable reliance, Dependency & Assumption of Responsibility Wrongs Act 1958 (vic), SS79, 82-83 Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman LH 408 2. Special relationship between P & D, eg doctor/patient 2.1. Schools Geyer v Downs, LH 417 2.2 Parent/Child Robertson v Swincer LH 418-20 3. Assumption of responsibility and control Smith v Leurs, LH 422 Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis, LH 424 Occupiers Liability - LH 7.5 / Liability of Public Authorities, Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), Part XII 1. Liability to entrants Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna, LH 387 Wrongs Act 1958 Vic Part IIA 2. Liability to neighbours – non-delegable duty for dangerous substances & activities Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd LH 848 2.3 Liability for Unauthorised Acts of Third Parties Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil LH 395-97 Defective Products & Structures – 1.1. manufacturers, builders, designers Donoghue v Stevenson, Grant v Australian Kniting Mills Ltd, LH 374 Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515 29 1.2. intermediate examination Voli v Inglewood Shire Council, LH 119,139 1.3. statutory alternatives Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), Pt V, Div 2A and Pt VA, LH 377 30 SEMINAR TEN– CASE STUDY Bayside City Council is the local authority for an area adjacent to Port Phillip Bay. Recently, a number of roller blade skaters have begun to use the footpaths and cycle paths along the foreshore in bayside. The Council also lays a new concrete path along the foreshore in Bayside. The Council is concerned that pedestrians may be injured by speeding blade skaters, so it puts up signs along the paths by the foreshore, that state "Pedestrians Only: No Roller Skaters of Bicycles" The Council also lays a new concrete path around Yellow Box Park, which is near the Bay. Signs reading "Pedestrians Not permitted: Roller Skaters and Bicycles Only" are erected around the paths and spray-painted on its surface. Yellow Box Park gets its name from it many yellow box trees, and the new concrete path passes beneath the branches of several of them. Yellow Box trees are known by foresters as "window- makers" because of their tendency to drop branches even in clam windless conditions. Harry loves to roller-skate on blade skates. Early one morning, he goes to Yellow Box Park to skate around the new path. A branch has fallen from one of the yellow box trees and it is lying on the path. Harry is skating at full speed, and he does not see the branch until it is too late to stop. His skates hit the branch and he falls and hits his head. He now suffers from epilepsy as a result of his head injuries. Harry was not wearing a crash helmet. His skull was fractured in the fall and he has now suffered brain damage. Advise Harry. 31 SEMINAR ELEVEN – NEGLIGENCE – Special Duty Categories Pure Economic Loss LH Ch 16 1. Action in deceit – LH 757-59 2. Negligent Misstatements – 2.1. General Duty Criteria Hedley Byren v Heller, LH 759-62 MLC v Evatt, LH 821, LH 763,765 Shaddock & Associates v Parramatta City Council LH 764 San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister, LH 766 2.2. Third Party Recovery – Beyond Immediate Recipient of statement San Sebastion LH 766-767 BT Australia Ltd. V Raine & Horne Pty Ltd LH 768 Esanda Finance v Peat Marwick Hungerfords, LH 776-779 2.3. Statutory alternatives Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss52, 53, 53A, 82 Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) ss9-11, s159-160 2. Pure Economic Loss by Negligent Acts – LH Ch 16.3 3.1. Third Party Property Damage Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v The Dredge "Willemstad", LH 783 Perre v Arpand LH 784-92 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd, LH 792 3.2. Third Party Breach of Conttract/Undertaking Hawkins v Clayton LH 770 Van Erp v Hill (1997) LH 772-76 32 SEMINAR ELEVEN– CASE STUDY Question One In June 1999, John Scrooge – a businessman – was negotiating a large business deal with XYZ Company. XYZ asked Scrooge for independent information about his financial credibility, whereupon Scrooge showed them a credit report from his banker (Progress Bank) and an audit report of his company by ABC, a leading audit firm. The bank"s credit report issues "To Whom It May Concern", stated that Scrooge was "a long standing and good business customer" but added "this report is issues without responsibility on our part". ABC"s audit report showed that Scrooge"s company was earning good profits. Scrooge had arranged for XYZ to telephone the Progress Bank, and they told XYZ that they confirmed the credit report they had given Scrooge. XYZ did not contact ABC. Acting on both the bank"s report and ABC"s audit report, XYZ entered into business with Scrooge but very soon lost $2 million because of Scrooge"s insolvency. Another company – Alpha Ltd – which had heard about the Progress Bank"s and ABC"s favourable reports about Scrooge, had also done business with Scrooge and Alpha has lost $1 million also because of Scrooge"s insolvency. Both XYZ and Alpha now learn that both the bank"s report and the audit report had been carelessly prepared and at the time both reports were issues, Scrooge and his company were almost insolvent. About the same time, in another development, Wiz Samuel (45 years) who had been a senior executive at Progress Bank for over 10 years left to start his own financial institution. For this purpose he applied for a licence from the Commonwealth statutory body that had to approve new financial institutions. The statutory body asked Progress Bank for a testimonial about Wiz – their former employee. Progress Bank erroneously submitted an adverse testimonial, a copy of which they had also posted to Wiz. Relying on that testimonial, the statutory body refused Wiz the licence, as a result of which Wiz suffered substantial financial loss. Expecting the licence, Wiz had also selected four employees to work in his new firm. Now Wiz tells them "sorry you have lost your jobs because of Progress Bank" and shows them the adverse testimonial. Your advice is sought on whether a duty of care is owed in the following legal claims: (i) XYZ against Progress Bank and ABC; (ii) Alpha against Progress Bank and ABC; (iii) Wiz against Progress Bank; and (iv) the four "employees" against Progress Bank. 33 Question Two Aqua Fisheries Pty Ltd (Aqua) leases premises in a Melbourne industrial estate to conduct an indoor intensive aquaculture business. The business breeds specialty fish for human consumption and sells direct to private customers and restaurants. Most of Aqua"s immediate neighboring businesses have been untroubled by minor fishy odors coming from its factory and waste drainage points. However, Bop Pty Ltd, which operates a newly established children"s play centre 50 metres from Aqua"s premises, is complaining of a loss of customers due to the fishy odor. Aqua has done everything possible to minimize the odors, but Bop is now threatening legal action. Small amounts of fish-pond waste water have also been seeping underground from Aqua"s property into a low ground depressions in the front yard of their immediate neighbour, Reno Corp, from which run-off during rain storms Reno"s grass lawn is being partly discolored. Despite complaints from Reno, Aqua is reluctant to fix the leak because of its minor nature and the high cost of affecting repairs. Most recently, Aqua"s business suffered a major accident that killed 80% of its fish stock. Investigations have revealed that (i) the fish were poisoned by a highly toxic chemical contaminant that entered their fish food, (ii) the chemical came into contact with the food without Aqua"s knowledge when the food was stored in factory storage bins that had been used to store the chemical during a previous tenancy, (iii) the chemical belonged to Chemcorp, who arranged to have it stored at the premises with the permission of the prior tenant, Ace Cleaners, and (iv) Chemcorp failed to clean all residue from the bins when it removed the chemical on the understanding that Ace was to clean the premises completely before vacating and (v) the presence of these chemical residues were difficult to detect by simple visual inspection. The true cause of the fish deaths remained unknown for several weeks. In the meantime, Aqua destroyed all of the affected fish, with the exception of one fish that was inadvertently sold to a private customer. This was eaten by the customer"s father. Rex, who has developed cancer as a result of consuming small amounts of the toxic chemical. Aqua Fisheries now seeks your advice regarding: (a) its liability ( if any) to (i) Bop Pty Ltd, (ii) Reno Corp, and (iii) Rex. (b) (b) its right to claim damages from Chemcorp in relation to its poisoned fish. 34 SAMPLE EXAM QUESTION Monash University Trimester Three 2004 Faculty of Law EXAM CODES: LAW 7266 TITLE OF PAPER: PRINCIPLES OF TORTS EXAM DURATION: 120 minutes writing time READING TIME: 30 minutes (noting is permitted in this period and authorised material may be consulted, but you may NOT write in your examination booklets until told to do so.) THIS PAPER IS FOR STUDENTS STUDYING AT:( tick where applicable) Berwick Clayton Malaysia Distance Education Open Learning Caulfield Gippsland Peninsula Enhancement Studies Other (specify) Candidates are reminded that they should have no material on their desks unless its use has been specifically permitted by the following instructions. AUTHORISED MATERIALS CALCULATORS YES NO OPEN BOOK YES NO SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED ITEMS YES NO "Open Book" means a student is entitled to bring any specifically permitted items into the examination for use during the examination. "Specifically permitted items" are legislation, books (including legal and general dictionaries) handouts, study guides, and personal notes. Such material may be highlighted or annotated. Items NOT PERMITTED are Monash University Library books, calculators, computers (including electronic dictionaries), or mobile phones. INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES 1. The duration of the exam allows time for you to plan your answers, and you are strongly encouraged to do so. 2. The standard of expression, spelling, punctuation and grammar will be taken into account in the assessment of your answers in this examination. 3. Write your student ID number (but NOT your name), and your lecturer"s name on the cover of each answer booklet used. 4. This examination consists of ONE question. All candidates are required to answer this question. You would be advised to spend approximately two hours on this question. You are NOT permitted to remove this examination paper from the examination room. ********** Page 1 of 4 35 Question Abe and his wife Betty, and their 2 children, Charlie (14), and Debbie (10), are holidaying at the Family Fun Resort (The Resort). The Resort offers many activities, including horse riding, canoeing, hiking and a range of other activities. It has special children"s groups, giving parents time out to enjoy themselves during the day. The Resort also operates a stable for racing horses. The manager of the stable, Bruce, has recently acquired an interest in one of the colts, called "Tortatious". Another guest at the Resort, Terry, is a keen racing enthusiast and hears about the new colt and becomes interested in investing into the syndicate that owns Tortatious. He wanders down to the stables and bumps into Bruce. He tells Bruce that he is interested in investing into the syndicate, but wants to check out the horse first. Bruce tells Terry that he is also a horse vet and offers to examine the horse and provide Terry with a veterinary certificate the next day. Bruce is busy with the Resort for the rest of the day and does not have time to examine the horse. The next day when Bruce sees Terry at the stables, feeling embarrassed for not having examined the horse and not wanting to lose out on another investor, he says to Terry: "Well, I have seen Tortatious and he seems fine to me. We all have great expectations that this horse is going to be a great champion – he will win lots of races and make lots of money". He then takes out a form headed "Certificate of Soundness", completes the horse"s details on the form, signs it and hands it to Terry, noting that, in the circumstances, there would be no charge. At the bottom of the certificate is the following statement: "Although every effort is made to report faithfully, some defects exist which are not apparent without an autopsy". Terry proceeds that same day to purchase one (1) share in the syndicate, in the amount of $200,000. A week later, back home, he shows his mother Shirley the veterinary certificate, and she gives him $200,000 to purchase a share in the syndicate in her name. Two months later Tortatious runs his first race but collapses after crossing the finishing line and has to be put down due to a serious heart disease. This disease could have been detected up to 6 months earlier by listening to the horse"s heart with a stethoscope, a standard part of any veterinary examination. Abe and his son Charlie are experienced canoeists. They decide to spend the afternoon together canoeing down to a nearby waterfall. The weather is overcast and, after half an hour it starts to rain, at times heavily. Visibility is poor. As they are paddling down stream, they see a sign post in the channel ahead saying "Caution – Rocky Section - Remain in Deep Channel ". Believing that this meant that the deep channel lay ahead of the sign, both Abe and Charlie paddle on straight ahead. In fact, the deep channel was to the left of the sign and a dangerous rocky channel lay beyond the sign. An arrow on the sign, pointing in the correct direction of the deep channel had worn away during storms earlier in the month, and with the poor conditions, was not easy to see. Abe and Charlie proceed beyond the sign believing they are in the deep channel. As they continued, they realised that they were in fact in a shallow rocky section of the river. Both Abe and Charlie struggle to keep their canoes upright and soon both are thrown into the cold water. Luckily for them, this is a narrow section of the river, near the golf course. One golfer, Ross, sees Abe and Charlie struggling in the water and jumps in to try and help 37 them. As he tries to reach Abe, the current pushes him up against some rocks, hitting his head and cutting his leg. A short time later, a rescue crew team from The Resort arrive. Abe and Charlie are taken to shore, and are only a little shaken by the incident, but suffer no physical injuries. The rescue team bundle Ross into a car and take him to the local Public Hospital. Upon arrival, Ross is assessed as having a deep cut in his forehead, as well as on his leg, both of which require stitches. Otherwise, he has no significant injuries. However, the surgical instruments used on Ross had not been properly sterilised due to a recurrent fault with the Public Hospital"s sterilising machine which has not as yet been replaced. As a result, Ross contracts a rare infection in the wound in his leg, and due to Ross"s poor immune system, he develops complications, and eventually, has to have his leg amputated below the knee. Ross was a professional footballer with one of the Victorian teams, and has lost out on lucrative sponsorship contracts. . Betty, although scheduled to play tennis that morning, decides instead to rest by the pool. Another guest, Mary, wanted to try out Betty"s new special tennis racket However, noticing Betty asleep on the lounge-chair; she decides not to wake her up and simply takes Betty"s tennis racket, which was lying in her bag, intending to return it later in the afternoon. However, later, on the tennis court, when running to get to a ball, Mary falls over, and the racket hits the net post and snaps in two. Meanwhile, Debbie is spending the day at the children"s club, for kids under 12 years of age. Part of the activities for the day is an afternoon hike, leaving at 3pm. There are 15 children in the group, under the charge of one instructor, Ivan. Ivan is employed by The Resort on a casual basis. He is paid on an hourly basis, being given a set fee for the number of hours worked. Rosters are prepared by The Resort, which determines the work schedule, including rostered days off. The Resort provides Ivan with weekly pay summaries, based on the number of hours worked over the weekly period. Ivan works for other child care groups and resorts in the area. Ivan does not wear the standard Resort uniform, except for a rain parker and hat that is given to him by The Resort, with The Resort emblem and name on it. Ivan heads off with the group after lunch, on one of the easier hikes to a waterfall. Unfortunately, Ivan is not feeling too well as he had a number of drinks with mates over lunch. Ivan is leading at a fast pace and although the rest of the group is keeping up, due to poor visibility Debbie finds herself lagging behind. Soon she finds herself separated from the rest of the group, and notices the weather getting worse and the wind and rain starts. She stumbles across a large rock face and small cave, and manages to find shelter inside the small cave.. Ivan decides to cut the hike short, given the sudden change in weather and heads the group back to the Resort. Betty is waiting for the group to return and starts to get hysterical when she notices that Debbie is not there. She asks Ivan, who indicates that he had not realised that Debbie had gone missing; having failed to do a head count at both the beginning and during the hike. A search part is sent out that afternoon. Despite scouring the area, by the time it was dark, some 2 hours later, there was still no sign of Debbie. Betty is terribly upset and did not sleep all night. She turns on the television and sees a late news bulletin which reports that a 10 year old child had gone missing and, because of the inclement weather, there were grave fears about finding her alive. Betty collapses, feeling guilty and blaming herself for letting her daughter go on the hike. The next morning she is taken to the Public Hospital where she is diagnosed as suffering from a nervous breakdown due to the shock and worry about her daughter. Two days later after ongoing searches, Debbie is miraculously found alive. Betty however, subsequently suffers a psychotic depressive illness. 37 38 The Resort keeps its own supply of petrol, stored in a depot on The Resort. During recent heavy rain, some of the drums cracked and petrol seeped out into the adjoining creek. It eventually finds its way downstream onto the property of Tom Trout, a local fish farmer. The petrol seeps into Tom"s fish ponds, killing off all his fish and results in lucrative supply contracts being cancelled. There is also a pungent smell pervading the property, forcing Tom and his family to remain indoors, day and night. Tom"s youngest son Sam suffers a serious gastric illness as a result of being overwhelmed by the petrol fumes. Your advice is sought on the following possible claims in tort (including possible damages): 1. Claim by Terry against Bruce in relation to his investment in the horse syndicate, including any possible claim by his mother Shirley. 18 marks 2. Claim by Ross against the Resort and/or the Public Hospital. 18 marks 3. Claim by Betty against the Resort. 14 marks 4. Claim by Betty against Mary in relation to her tennis racket. 8 marks 5. Claim by Tom Trout against the Resort, including any possible action for and on behalf of his son, Sam. 38
Pages to are hidden for
"7266-2009-trim2-read - MONASH UNIVERSITY"Please download to view full document


text:
I need a way to find the sign bit in a 32 bit integer (the most significant bit) using only the operators ! ~ & ^ | +. I am only allowed to use constants up to 0xFF, but larger numbers can be constructed. And it must be inline code, no loops or conditionals
Yes this is for an assignment however this is not the whole problem it is only a minor case I need to check.
I know I can get the sign by doing x>>31, which can be done using division, but that only leads to the need to have more bit shifts which i can't use :(
The fewer the operators the better too, because I am only allowed 10 to do the whole problem and this is only a minor case.
The problem this is for is to check if a number x is equal to 0x7FFFFFFF. the way my code reads now is [(is x neg?) & (is x+1 negative)]. if x equals 0x7FFFFFFF then adding 1 will overflow the buffer causing x to become negative. but this logic will only work if x is not negative before hand. hence the first part.
help me please???

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Book your room at Dragør Badehotel
Standard Twin Room, Courtyard ViewMax Occupancy: 3 guests (up to 2 children)
Single RoomMax Occupancy: 1 guest
Family RoomMax Occupancy: 6 guests (up to 5 children, 2 infants)
Standard Twin Room, Sea ViewMax Occupancy: 2 guests (up to 1 child, 1 infant)
Standard Twin Room, Balcony, Sea ViewMax Occupancy: 3 guests (up to 2 children, 2 infants)
Get an overview of this hotel3.5-star hotel with restaurant and bar/lounge
Situated near the airport, this hotel is within 9 mi (15 km) of The Blue Planet Aquarium, Stroeget, and Church of Our Saviour. Thorvaldsens Museum and National Museum of Denmark are also within 9 mi (15 km).
Hotel Features
Along with a restaurant, this hotel has a bar/lounge and a rooftop terrace. Free WiFi in public areas and free self parking are also provided. Additionally, coffee/tea in the lobby, a business center, and a meeting room are onsite.
Room Amenities
All 33 rooms provide free WiFi, minibars, and room service. Guests will also find free newspapers and showers.Information missing or incorrect? Tell us!
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
The hotel offers a restaurant. A bar/lounge is on site where guests can unwind with a drink. Business-related amenities at this 3.5-star property consist of a business center and a meeting room.
Public areas are equipped with complimentary high-speed wireless Internet access. This Dragor hotel also offers a rooftop terrace, barbecue grills, and multilingual staff. Onsite self parking is complimentary.
- Total number of rooms - 33
- Number of buildings/towers - 2
- Free newspapers in lobby
- Breakfast available (surcharge)
- Bar/lounge
- Restaurant
- Multilingual staff
- Front desk (limited hours)
- Picnic area
- Television in lobby
- Barbecue grill(s)
- One meeting room
- Garden
- Business center
- Rooftop terrace
- Free self parking
- Coffee/tea in lobby
- Free WiFi
Available in all rooms: Free WiFi
Available in some public areas: Free WiFi
Free self parking
Room Amenities
- Minibar
- Rollaway/extra beds available
- Daily housekeeping
- Private bathroom
- Iron/ironing board (on request)
- Room service
- Free newspaper
- Shower only
- Hair dryer (on request)
- Free WiFi
Where to Eat
Buffet breakfasts are available for a surcharge between 6:30 AM and 10 AM on weekdays.
Dragør Badehotel has a restaurant serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Room service is available.
Nearby Things to Do
The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby; fees may apply.
- Sailing nearby
- Bicycle rentals nearby
- Hiking/biking trails nearby
Hotel Policies
Check-in time ends at midnight
Minimum check-in age is 18
Check-in time starts at 2 PM
Special check-in instructions:
Check-out time is 11 AM
Payment types
Pets allowed
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on hotel policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
- Fee for buffet breakfast: DKK 85 for adults and DKK 43 for children (approximately)
- Airport shuttle fee: DKK 100-250 per person
- Pet deposit: DKK 250
- Deposit: DKK 200
- Onsite credit card charges are subject to a surcharge
We should mention
Children 2 years old and younger stay free when occupying the parent or guardian's room, using existing bedding.


text:
This year Halloween falls on a weekend and XXLMag.com is trick or treatin'. With today being devil's night and tomorrow marking the annual costumed holiday, we scoured the Net for some of hip-hop's darkest and most demonic music videos to ...Read More
Featured On XXLmag.com
The Latest
Ecko Limited
When I first heard the rumblings of Marc Ecko owing Chinese investors hundreds of millions of dollars, I thought we were going to later hear about dude disappearing in a mysterious boat accident. That's not the kind of money I'd ...Read More
XXcLusive: Soulja Boy Has "Three More Mixtapes for Thanksgiving"
Soulja Boy puts in work. On the brink of releasing three new mixtapes on Halloween, the teen sensation tells XXLMag.com that he's got more in store for his fans next month. "I'm about to drop three more mixtapes Thanksgiving," he ...Read More
BET: Behind the Scenes at the Hip Hop Awards Cypher [Video]
Wyclef Jean & Tony Yayo Support Haitian Recycling Program
Haitian hip-hop personalities Wyclef Jean, Tony Yayo and Sha Money will supporting their homeland in a competition that could help the country. Haiti is currently competing with 11 other countries in the BBC News "World Challenge '09," to earn a grant ...Read More
MTV: Kid Cudi has Snoop, Clipse & Travis Barker Lined up for Collabo LP
It's A Beautiful Thing Being R.A. the Rugged Man
A lot of people look at me like "Rugged Man's skill level is too high to be where he's at'. It's sad that he's not more known. He should be huge." But here's the thing, this is the path that ...Read More
Shyne Deported, Lawyer Speaks on Rapper's Current Situation
After pictures hit the Net yesterday (October 28) of Shyne at an undisclosed airport, rumors began running rampant that Shyne was being forced to return to Belize. MTV News has confirmed that the rapper was indeed released from the custody ...Read More
Update: Man Involved in Murder of T.I. Associate Pleads Guilty
The driver involved in the murder of T.I.'s close friend and assistant Philant Johnson, pled guilty to manslaughter and other charges in a Cincinnati courtroom yesterday (October 28). According to the Associated Press, Padron Thomas is now facing 10 years for ...Read More
- Listen to DeJ Loaf and Big Sean, "Back Up"
- Listen to Chief Keef, "Ain't Missing You"
- Listen to Eminem Feat. Gwen Stefani, "Kings Never Die"
- Listen to Trae Tha Truth Feat. Boosie Badazz and Future, "Tricken Every Car I Get"
- Listen to Alchemist Feat. Action Bronson, "Voodoo"
- Listen to Migos, "Real Street N#*%a"
- Listen to Hurt Everybody Feat. Mick Jenkins, "Social Network"
- Listen to Statik Selektah Feat. Action Bronson, Ab-Soul and Elle Varner, "All You Need"
Hip-Hop News
- Lil Wayne Drops New 'Free Weezy Album'
- Today in Hip-Hop: R.I.P Mausberg
- Chris Brown Calls Out His Daughter's Grandmother on Instagram
New Artistsmore >
Today in Hip-Hop
- Today in Hip-Hop: Kendrick Lamar Releases, 'Section.80′
- Today in Hip-Hop: Nas Releases 'It Was Written'
- Today in Hip-Hop: Geto Boys Release 'We Can't Be Stopped'
- 18 Items That Will Help You Celebrate the Fourth of July in Style
- Adidas Originals x Wings+Horns Summer 2015 Collection
- Best Summer Drinks
- Check Out The Behind-the-Scenes Video From XXL's Freshman Show in NYC
- XXL Freshmen 2015 Cypher – Part 3 – DeJ Loaf, Fetty Wap & Shy Glizzy
- XXL Freshmen 2015 Cypher – Part 2 – GoldLink, OG Maco & Vince Staples
- Check Out Behind-the-Scenes Photos From XXL's Freshman Show in NYC
- Hip-Hop Reacts to the Supreme Court Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
- A Brief History of 50 Cent Making Fun of Celebrities on Instagram
- Throwback: Lil Wayne And Birdman Against The World
- Check Out The Game's First XXL Cover Story From 2005
- Chris Brown Tells All In Throwback Cover Story
- 24 Rappers Who Don't Have Their Own Artists
- 26 Photos of Bad Boy Over the Years
- Here's a History of Scott Storch's Troubles
- Diddy's Been a Regular at the UCLA Campus the Past Few Months
- 9 Rappers Called Out by Their Exes
- Best Hip-Hop Instagrams of the Day
- 10 of Chris Brown's Emotional Moments Over Karrueche Tran
- 19 Rappers Who Performed in Africa
- Chris Brown's Major Meltdowns Over the Years
- 3 Rappers Who Saved Someone's Life
- 49 of the Most Recent Leaked Songs by Young Thug
- 5 Rap Videos Shot in Africa
- 11 Rappers Giving Lectures at Universities
- 29 Rappers Celebrate Their Mothers On Instagram
- Best Hip-Hop Instagrams of the Day


text:
Married Ind. police duo killed in murder suicide
Sgt. Ryan Anders forced his way into the back door estranged wife Officer Kim Carmack's home.
Join the discussion
PoliceOne top 5
- 1 10 secrets cops know that most people don't
- 2 Video: Ariz. shootout injures two cops, kills suspect
- 3 Video: Texas cops fatally shoot man who pulled replica
- 4 Video: Cops, medic, firefighters brawl at T-ball game
- 5 Former LA cop involved in OIS shares lessons on deadly force


text:
Bid placed 6/15/2014 3:25 PM CST
Expires 6/16 3:25 PM
Ur terms state something about a flatbed. You will be towing this boat on its trailer correct?
yes i will be towing your boat on its own trailer i have a 23 foot deck over trailer that i use for when ever i need it i bought it brand new last year to get going on uship ive been hauling campers for a company in goshen indiana this year so i havent been using it a whole lot anymore
Bid placed 3/31/2014 11:00 AM CST
Declined on 3/31
I am flexible on my shipping dates. Can you work a better price if I ship around your schedule?
Bid placed 4/17/2014 9:22 PM CST
Canceled on 4/18
Sign In or join to see if you qualify to book this shipment.
Be sure to verify your MC number to see if the information on file matches these requirements.
Brokers aren't allowed to book this shipment.
This customer has requested to only book with a carrier.


text:
Get Gorgeous! Save 12% off your order today. Enter code: GORGEOUS at checkout *Exclusions Apply
Tendskin In-Growing Hair Solution...
Tend Skin Air Shave Gel 240ml
Tend Skin Waterproof Body Lotion ...
Tendskin Roll-On In-Growing Hair ...
Telephone: 0161 813 1479
Monday - Friday: 8am to 8pm
Saturday: 9am to 4pm
Beauty Expert, Meridian House, Gadbrook Park, Gadbrook Way, Rudheath, Northwich, Cheshire CW9 7RA
© 2015 The Hut.com Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales (company number 5016010) whose registered office is at Meridian House, Gadbrook Park, Gadbrook Way, Rudheath, Northwich, Cheshire, UK, CW9 7RA.
Beauty Expert - EN.com - Part of The Hut Group


text:
Top Homekeeping
- Miele Compact C2 Quartz Vacuum Sugg. Price: $479 Our Price: $429.95
Related Products
OXO Stainless Steel Folding Dish Rack
OXO Stainless Steel Folding Dish Rack
This stainless steel dish rack is compact yet efficiently designed to hold everything, including plates, utensils, heavy pots and pans, bulky mixing bowls, sharp knives and delicate glassware. When not in use, the sides fold down for flat storage. ...