Case Study: LAW203 Torts - RSL Club Negligence & Duty of Care

This case study examines the potential negligence of an RSL Club concerning injuries sustained by a visitor, Alice, due to unsafe premises during renovations and the subsequent injury to her daughter, Tasmin, at a railway station. It analyzes the legal principles of duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and remoteness under Australian tort law, particularly the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). The application of these principles suggests the RSL Club may be liable for Alice's injuries due to their failure to provide a safe entrance, while the railway station is less likely to be liable for Tasmin's injuries as they maintained a reasonable standard of care. The study references key cases such as Donoghue v Stevenson and Tame v NSW to support its analysis and concludes that Alice has a stronger case for recovering compensation from the RSL Club.

0
Student Name
Student Number
Date

1
I MATERIAL FACTS
Alice had suffered the injury due to the failure of RSL Club to provide a safe entry to
older people who visit the club when the main entrance was undergoing repairs. Due to the
failure of RSL Club to take precautions which is its duty towards visitors in the premises, the
injury was suffered by Alice. Tasmin, daughter of Alice, received the news when one of
Alice’s friends call her, and while talking on the phone, she did not notice the warning sign
put up by the railway station due to which she tripped and break her ankle.
II ISSUE OF LAW AND POLICY
The potential claimants (plaintiffs) are Alice and Tasmin, and the potential defendants
are RSL Club and the railway station. The legal issue is whether Alice can hold RSL Club
liable to pay her compensation under a suit for negligence? Whether Tasmin can recover
damages from the railway station for the injury suffered by her under a suit for negligence?
III RULES AND RESOURCES
A person can file a civil suit against a wrongdoer who is a person that commits a tort
or tortious act to demand compensation for the injury suffered by the first person. Negligence
is the failure of a party to exercise a duty of care which is reasonable to exercise in specified
circumstances.1 The tort law is governed by both the common law and the Australian
legislation. The Civil Liability Act 20022 (CLA) provides key provisions regarding suit which
is filed for tort law in New South Wales. While filing a suit for negligence, there are three
perquisites which must be present that include a duty of care, breach of such duty and the
injury.
A Duty of Care
A duty of care is referred to the obligation of a person to take certain precautions to
avoid causing injury to third parties.3 Donoghue v Stevenson4 is a landmark case in which the
elements of negligence were established. A claimant becomes ill because she drinks remain
of a snail which was present in a ginger-beer due to the negligence of the defendant. The
court provided that a duty exists based on the “neighbour” test which provides three elements
1 Douglas Hodgson, The law of intervening causation (Routledge, 2016).
2 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
3 Amanda Stickley, Australian torts law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016).
4 (1932) AC 562

2
for establishing a duty which includes the threat of harm, close relationship between parties
and nature of the damage.5 In Aust Safeway Stores v Zaluzna6 case, it was held that occupiers
owe a duty towards parties who enter the property which includes visitors, tenants, and
trespassers. General principles are given under section 5B of CLA to hold a party liable for
negligence. As per section 5B (1), a person is not liable for negligence unless (a) the threat is
foreseeable, (b) the risk was significant and (c) a reasonable person would take precautions.7
B Breach of Duty
Failure to maintain reasonable care breaches the duty of care. In Paris v Stepney
Borough Council8 case, it was held that failure to act as a reasonable person in the specified
situation resulted in violating the duty of care.9 Section 5B (2) provides that various factors
define whether the party has acted reasonably or not which include (a) the probability of
damages in case a standard is not maintained, (b) likely seriousness of the injury, (c) the onus
to avoid the harm and (d) social utility relating to the party’s action in case the injury
occurred.10 The social utility element is not necessary to be considered which is determined
by the court as per the facts of the case as given in Waverley Council v Ferreira11 case.
C Causation
The damages suffered by a person must be caused directly due to the negligent
actions. Section 5D provides that two elements must be present which include (a) the
negligence was the main condition which caused the harm (factual causation) and (b) the
injury is within the liability of the party (scope of liability).12
D Remoteness
The element of remoteness is necessary to hold a party liable for the tort of negligence
which provides that the damages must be reasonably foreseeable, and they must not be too
remote.13 In Tame v NSW14 case, the High Court rejected the appeal of Mrs Tame who
claimed that she suffered a psychiatric condition after a police officer showed she had blood
5 Graham Stephenson, Sourcebook on Tort Law 2/e (Routledge, 2012).
6 (1987) 162 CLR 479
7 Jade, Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (2018) < https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=275199>.
8 (1950) UKHL 3
9 Brendan Greene, Optimize Tort Law (Routledge, 2017).
10 Austlii, Civil Liability Act 2002 (2018) < http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/>.
11 (2005) NSWCA 418
12 Legislation, Civil Liability Act 2001 No 22 (2018) < https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2002/22>.
13 Harold Luntz et al, Torts: cases and commentary (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2017).
14 (2002) 211 CLR 317

3
alcohol reading of 0.14 when in reality she was sober. McHugh J provided that duty did not
exist because the defendant is entitled to assume that the party (plaintiff) is of normal
fortitude. It was held that the threat of injury is extremely unlikely based on which the illness
of the plaintiff is not reasonably foreseeable based on which the damages cannot be
claimed.15
IV APPLICATION
A duty was owed by RSL Club to its visitors as discussed in Aust Safeway Stores v
Zaluzna case. The duty includes taking precautions to provide them a safe entrance. Element
of section 5B (1) is present because (a) the risk is foreseeable, (b) significant and (c) a
prudent person had taken precautions. This duty was violated because a standard was not
maintained (Paris v Stepney Borough Council). RSL Club did not act reasonably as section
5B (2) because (a) even after the probability of risk a standard of care was not maintained, (b)
the injury was serious, and (c) burden to avoid the injury was on RSL Club. The element of
social utility can be avoided as per the facts of the case (Waverley Council v Ferreira).
Element of causation was present because the negligence as a necessary element of the injury
suffered by Alice and it was in the scope of RSL liability (section 5D (1)). The damages were
not remote. On the other hand, a duty is owed by the railway station to its customers
(Donoghue v Stevenson). However, the injury suffered by Tasmin is not due to the negligence
of the railway station because appropriate standard was maintained by the station by putting
up the sign. As discussed in Tame v NSW case, the railway station can assume that Tasmin of
a normal fortitude based on which the injury was not foreseeable.
V TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
Alice is more likely to held RSL Club liable under a suit for negligence to recover
compensation for the loss suffered by her. Tasmin is less likely to receive the compensation
because all elements of negligence are not fulfilled.
15 Dominic Villa, ‘Breach of duty’, (2013) (115) Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 10.

4
VI BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Articles/Books/Reports
Greene, Brendan, Optimize Tort Law (Routledge, 2017).
Hodgson, Douglas, The law of intervening causation (Routledge, 2016).
Luntz, Harold et al, Torts: cases and commentary (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2017).
Stephenson, Graham, Sourcebook on Tort Law 2/e (Routledge, 2012).
Stickley, Amanda, Australian torts law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016).
Villa, Dominic, ‘Breach of duty’, (2013) (115) Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 10.
B Cases
Aust Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1950) UKHL 3
Tame v NSW (2002) 211 CLR 317
Waverley Council v Ferreira (2005) NSWCA 418
C Legislation
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
D Others
Austlii, Civil Liability Act 2002 (2018) <
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/>.
Jade, Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (2018) < https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=275199>.
Legislation, Civil Liability Act 2001 No 22 (2018) <
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2002/22>.