Hackshaw V. Shaw | Case Of Tort Liability Negligence - Desklib

Running Head: HACKSHAW V. SHAW
Hackshaw v. Shaw
Name of the Student
Name of the University

HACKSHAW V. SHAW 2
INTRODUCTION
Hackshaw v. Shaw is a case of tort of negligence where the liability of the occupier of a
premises towards a trespasser has been discussed. Further the case also discusses about the
special obligations that an occupier of a premises owe towards the different types of trespassers.
The court in the instant case evaded to recognize the special rules with regard to the liability of
an occupier of a premises by putting the law of negligence on top priority.
According to the law of tort, negligence means the failure on the part of a person who had
duty to take reasonable care to prevent any harm being done to other person from the former’s
act. The duty that a person owes is a standard duty of care that a reasonable prudent person
would have taken in similar circumstances. The basic idea of negligence is that the person who is
under a duty to take care should take reasonable care in his actions, keeping in mind the possible
consequences that might occur to other person or property and such harm is reasonably
foreseeable.
This assignment has been prepared to support the arguments given and stand taken by
the appellant with regard to the duty of care of a person occupying a premises towards a
trespasser the presence of whom is not known to the former.

HACKSHAW V. SHAW 3
FACTS
Shaw, the defendant had a farm wherein he had a petrol pump for the purpose of fuelling
his automobiles that are used in his farm. The petrol stored in his farm was being stolen. He took
various measures to prevent the stealing of petrol but failed in his attempts to do so. He made
complaint to the police who asked him for evidences of stealing. The defendant finally decided
to confront with the stealer. He came up with a plan and on the night of the alleged incident
waited for the thief along with his wife in the farm carrying a rifle and a shotgun with him. Cox,
came there in a stolen car with its headlights off along with the plaintiff, Hackshaw, a girl of
sixteen year of age. According to the plaintiffs facts, after entering the farm Cox stopped and
came out of his car and the plaintiff also came out of the car when the defendant fired a shot
which hit her on her arm. Cox then got into the car and ran away after which a number of other
shots were fired. On the other hand, according to the facts of the defendant, when Cox came out
of the car he was alone. The latter fired a shot from his gun to warn Cox and at that time
probably no one was there in the car. Cox ran towards the car when the defendant fired the
second shot which went through the door of the car and might have hit the plaintiff. The later
shots made by the shotgun punctured the car’s tyre and broke the car’s windscreen. The judge at
the trial court gave judgment as against the defendant and also held the plaintiff liable for
contributory negligence. The defendant made an appeal while the plaintiff made a cross appeal
simultaneously to the Full Court. The Court allowed the appeal with majority. Thereafter the
plaintiff made a special leave to appeal to the High Court which was thereby granted (Hackshaw
v. Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614).

HACKSHAW V. SHAW 4