References: (2002) 211 CLR 540, [2000] FCA 1099
Links: Austlii
Coram: Gaudron J
Austlii (Federal Court of Australia) TORT – Negligence – non-feasance by public authorities – non-exercise by local government council and State government to minimise faecal contamination of lake where oysters grown commercially – oysters carrying hepatitis A virus – consumer of oysters contracting hepatitis A – whether duty of care owed to be discharged by exercise of statutory powers – causation – whether local government council and State government required to carry out sanitary survey of shore of lake.
TORT – Negligence – whether duty of care owed by commercial farmer of oysters to consumers of them breached where oysters carrying hepatitis A virus due to faecal contamination of lake in which oysters grown – oyster farmer’s depuration plant not shown to be working unsatisfactorily – whether discharge of oyster farmer’s duty required it to carry out sanitary survey of shore of lake or to urge public authorities to do so – causation of oysters contaminated with hepatitis A virus as a result of faecal contamination of lake where oysters grown – whether circumstances show it was unreasonable for consumer to rely on skills or judgment of grower – whether oysters were as fit for purpose as reasonable to expect.
Gaudron J: ‘Although different concepts inform the law of negligence, ordinarily there is a duty to warn only if there is a foreseeable risk that a person will be led to believe that something is safe when it is not.’
McHugh J: ‘The duty of care owed by a manufacturer or producer to a consumer is a duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to the consumer. To formulate the duty in more specific terms invites error because it is likely to mix a question of law (whether a duty existed) with a question of fact (whether a breach occurred). If the duty is formulated in specific terms, the issue on breach is whether the duty has been performed in accordance with the terms of the duty as formulated. But, as Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [footnote reference to (1980) 146 C.L.R. 40 at 47-48, per Mason J., Stephen and Aickin J.J. agreeing] shows, the question of breach is far more complex than an affirmative or negative answer to the question whether the defendant carried out the duty as formulated. It involves evaluating and weighing a number of competing considerations.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – McTear -v- Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS (Bailii, [2005] ScotCS CSOH_69, Times 14-Jun-05, Scottish CS)
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 29-Feb-16 Ref: 226698
