Negligence and Tort Law Assignment

Added on - 19 Nov 2019

  • 12

    pages

  • 2962

    words

  • 70

    views

  • 0

    downloads

Showing pages 1 to 4 of 12 pages
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnBusiness LawAnnetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2001)(Student Details: )
Executive SummaryNegligence is a tort which attracts civil penalties in Australia. There are certain elements whichhave to be shown to be present by the person who makes a claim of negligence and included inthese are foreseeability, duty of care and the relationship between the two parties.Annetts vAustralian Stationis a prominent case of Australia where the court rejected the claims made bythe plaintiff as they believed that the duty of care was owed by the defendant only to the sonof the plaintiff and that too in a reasonable manner. Also, the duty of care which the defendantowed to the plaintiff was not breached in this case as the risk of harm was not reasonablyforeseeable. In this report, a discussion has been carried on whereby the case ofAnnetts vAustralian Stationis highlighted in terms of the facts of the case, the arguments of thedefendant, the decision of the court and a critical analysis of the same.
ContentsIntroduction.....................................................................................................................................4Facts of the Case..............................................................................................................................4Defendant’s Issues and Arguments.................................................................................................5Judgement of Court.........................................................................................................................8Critical Analysis................................................................................................................................9References.....................................................................................................................................10
IntroductionPsychiatric injury is something for which the damages are granted under tort of negligence. Aleading case where the psychiatric injury was contested was the case ofAnnetts v AustralianStation(2002) 211 CLR 317. InAnnetts v Australian Station, the duty of care owed to the son ofthe plaintiff was established as the child died as a result of the mental harm which took placewhen he ran away. The plaintiff in this case had made a claim that they had received psychiatricinjury as a result of the breach of duty of care of the defendant. However, the court did notuphold these claims and out rightly quashed the claims made by the plaintiff of this case(Sappideen, 2009).In this report, the case has been discussed and the side of the defendant has been taken. Apartfrom giving the facts of the case, the arguments raised and the decision of the case, thedecision has been critically analysed to decide if the undertaken decision has been right.Facts of the CaseThe name of plaintiff’s son was James Annetts who had departed from his home back in Aug1986, which was in NSW and at that time, he was only 16 year old (Quizlet, 2017). He had lefthis home to go to WA for working with the defendant. Before James left for WA, his mother hada word with the defendant and asked about the working conditions at WA. She was assured bythe defendant that his son would be properly supervised and was set to work in Flora Valley,