Ask a question from expert
Hackshaw V. Shaw Law Case Study
8 Pages2433 Words632 Views
Added on 2020-03-23
Hackshaw V. Shaw Law Case Study
Added on 2020-03-23
BookmarkShareRelated Documents
1ContentsHACKSHAW V. SHAW [1984] 155 CLR 614...........................................................................................2Case introduction.....................................................................................................................................2The facts of the case................................................................................................................................2The issues raised by both plaintiff and defendant....................................................................................3The arguments presented by both parties.................................................................................................3The judgment of the court........................................................................................................................4Critical analysis of why the court decided in favor of the party...............................................................4Reference List.............................................................................................................................................6
2HACKSHAW V. SHAW [1984] 155 CLR 614Case introductionThe leading case of HACKSHAW V. SHAW [1984] 155 CLR 614, was pronounced by the HighCourt of Australia on 11th December 1984 and is considered as the landmark case from the pointof view that it lays down the tortuous duty of care upon the occupier of the property towards thetrespasser. But, the duty of care can only be imposed upon the occupier of the premises if he canreasonably foresee that because of his negligent actions there is some kind of injury that might besustained by the trespasser. The court established that the use of firearm was the force which wasexcessive in nature and the danger of injuries of grave nature was not proportionality justifyingthe wrongful actions that are undertaken by the plaintiff. (The Law Teacher, 2016)Now, the case law is critically evaluated and thus it is first important to provide the brief facts ofthe case. The facts of the caseThe brief facts of the case are:The defendant was a farm owner at Korong Vale in Victoria. He does not sleep over the farm butused to visit the farm every day for work. in order to refuel any motor vehicles that are requiredon the farm there was a pump and a petrol tank that was installed. However, the petrol of theDefendant was stolen since a year before, that is, December 1978. In order to avoid the stealinghe put thefts but the same were cut off. No police help was also provided to him. The main event that took place because of which the present case was brought in was when atheft incurred on the farm of the defendant, that is, 3rd December 1978. In order to catch thethieves, the defendant decided that he will wait on the farm the very same night. But after sevendays, that is on 10th, the wife of the defendant and the defendant were hiding near the bower. Hewas also carrying a shotgun and rifle. The main intention of the Defendant to carry the artillerywas that if any vehicle will enter the farm then he will immobilize the same and thus will able tofind out who the thief is? (Gibson & Fraser, 2013)On the night of 10th December, the plaintiff, who is a sixteen year old girl along with a thief(Cox) enters on the farm of the defendant. The thief switches off the lights of the car and stop
3near the petrol tank and starting pumping the petrol. The defendant fired two arms and one ofthem hit the plaintiff.Upon these facts the present case was brought in to decide whether the defendant owns a duty ofcare towards the trespasser on the land.Based on this factual situation, the main issues that are frame by the court are now analyzed. The issues raised by both plaintiff and defendantThere are three major issues that are raised: (Gillies 2004)i.Can The Defendant be imposed with Duty of care against a trespasser?ii.By firing arm on the car whether this duty was violated by the defendant?iii.Whether the defendant is answerable to the injuries of the plaintiff under the law ofnegligence? In order to resolve these issues there are arguments that are relied upon by the parties.The arguments presented by both partiesBefore analyzing the judgment and the critical analyses of the decision that was laid down by thecourt, it is important to understand the main arguments that are put forth by the parties. (Doyles,2015)Arguments of the defendant The first argument - It was argued by the plaintiff that when the thief left the car at that time shealso left the car and was standing at the front passenger side door. When she heard the first shotshe moved in the car and hid near the front seat. It was when the thief was driving the car that thesecond shot was heard. Thus, it was the first shot because of which she sustains injuries. Thisargument of the plaintiff was negated by the defendant and he submitted that he was no awarethat the plaintiff at any time got out of the car and he was of the belief that it was only the thiefthat got out of the car to pump the petrol. The second argument – the defendant argued that prior firing the arm at the car he shouted andasked the driver of the car to move out of the car. He then fire at the engine of the car and had nointention to hurt anyone.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Hackshaw V. Shaw | Case Of Tort Liability Negligence - Deskliblg...
|12
|2469
|66
HA2022 - Business Law - Assignmentlg...
|9
|2586
|171
Case Analysis on Duty of Care in Business Lawlg...
|5
|992
|306