Analysis of Romeo v Conservation Commission in Australian Law

This case study provides an analysis of the Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) case, focusing on the key issue of whether the Conservation Commission breached its duty of care by not erecting fencing or warning signs near a dangerous cliff. The analysis covers the legal principles of negligence, calculus of negligence, and obvious risk, referencing relevant cases such as Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority and Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna. Arguments from both the appellant and respondent are examined, considering the foreseeability of risk, resource limitations, and the aesthetic impact of fencing. The court acknowledged the duty of care but concluded that no breach occurred, as the risk was obvious and the probability of injury was low, with the burden of erecting fencing being considerably high. Desklib offers further study resources and solved assignments for similar case analyses.

Business Law in Australia
Romeo v Conservation
Commission of the Northern
Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431

Issue
• The key issue is whether the Conservation
Commission breached its duty of care by not
erecting fencing across the two-kilometre-long
cliff.
• The issue is whether the authority can be held
liable for not putting up warning signs to warn
people regarding the danger of the cliff.
• The issues, in this case, are linked with
obvious risk, breach of duty and calculus of
negligence.

Rule
• Negligence is defined as a breach of the
duty of care which results in causing injury
or loss to a party or entity.
• The calculus of negligence is referred to
the process which assists in determining
whether a person or entity has breached
the duty of care.
• An obvious risk is a referred to a risk which
is obvious to a reasonable person
(Jurkovsky, 2012).

Rule
• This case is considered as a successor of Nagle
v Rottnest Island Authority case in which the
authority was held liable for breaching its duty
of care.
• Further, the judgement of Australian Safeway
Stores v Zaluzna case was discussed to prove
that the doctrine of old occupiers’ liability has
changed.
• It was argued that to impose a duty, the risk is
required to be foreseeable, and in this case, the
risk was foreseeable.

Rule
• The respondent argued that Nagle case was a
distinguishable one because the authority was
controlling the land which is used by the
public (Eburn and Geoffrey, 2017).
• In Nagle case, the authority failed to warn
people regarding the risk of swimming in the
water that could cause serious injuries.
• An example of Aiken v Kingborough Corp was
given which provided that the authority has a
duty for ensuring the safety of the public.

Application
• The appellant arguments were based on the
judgement of Nagle and Aiken cases.
• It was provided that the authority has a duty to
protect the public from the danger and it
breached the duty due to not putting any
warning signing or adequate lighting (Giles,
2009).
• It was argued that the Conservation
Commission has a duty to put fencing across
the two-kilometre of the cliff for preventing any
injury to happen.

Application
• The respondent argued that there is a low
probability of injury because in last 100
years no one was harmed.
• The authority is a public entity, and its
resources are limited. Putting fencing
would mean resources would be reduced
that can be spent on something important.
• The risk was obvious because it is a cliff.
Fencing would damage the look of the cliff
as well which is its prime attraction.

Application
• The burden of erecting a fence across two-
kilometres is considerably high and costly for the
authority.
• The majority of judges agreed that the authority
has a duty of care to prevent people from getting
injured near the cliff.
• Hayne J rejected the application of the judgement
of Nagle case in this situation.
• The key argument point between majority and
minority of judges was how important it is to erect
fencing across the cliff (Stickley et al., 2016).

Conclusion
• The court agreed that Conservation
Commission has a duty to prevent any injuries
to the public, however, not substantive ground
was found for breach of duty.
• The risk is foreseeable, and for any reasonable
person, it would be an obvious risk.
• The probability of risk was substantially low as
well because in last 100 years no injury
occurred in the place.

Conclusion
• It is reasonable for the authority to assume that
entrants will take reasonable care for preventing
injury because it is a cliff and it cannot be held
liable for people who are under the influence.
• The erection of fencing would be expensive, and
it would limit the investment of the authority in
things that are important.
• The court held that a duty of care was owed,
however, there is no breach of duty and the
authority cannot be held liable for injuries of the
appellant.

References
• Jurkovsky, P, "The Tort Of Negligence, Standards Of Care
And Vicarious Liability" (2012) 130 Law and Ethics:
Australia and New Zealand
• Eburn, M and Geoffrey C, "You Own The Fuel, But Who
Owns The Fire?" (2017) 26(12) International Journal of
Wildland Fire
• Giles, R, "Duty Of Care, Scope And Breach" (2009)
9(2) Journal of the Judicial Commission of New South
Wales
• Stickley, A et al, "Predictive Technology And Natural
Hazards: Risk For Australian Planning Authorities?"
(2016) 8(1) International Journal of Law in the Built
Environment