Business Law for Australian Stations Pty Ltd - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theBusiness Law for Australian Stations Pty Ltd. Answer: Introduction Annetts v Australian Station (2002) 211 CLR 317 is a leading case with regards to psychiatric injury covered under negligence and the injuries which are resulted from such tort. This particular case deals with the owed duty of care towards plaintiffs son, where the child of the plaintiff died, due to the mental harm caused to him. It was argued that due to the contravention of care on part of the defendant, the plaintiff had been injured, in form of the psychiatric injury sustained by them. When the matter was contested in the court, the claims were denied by the court to the plaintiff (Sappideen, 2009). To elucidate upon this particular case, the side of the defendant has been discussed and in addition to this, the facts of the case and the decision given in this case has been provided so that a conclusive summary of this case can be put forward. Factual Background James Annetts was the son of the plaintiff who left his home located in New South Wales in Aug 1986 and he was merely 16 (Quizlet, 2017). The reason for leaving the home was to join the work of the defendant which was in another state, i.e., in WA. The defendant had been questioned by the plaintiff before her son left NSW and the questions pertaining to the work conditions were asked. The defendant informed the plaintiff that her son would work in Flora Valley and at all time he would be properly supervised, share room with others and properly would be looked after (Federation Press, 2017). James worked at Flora Valley for 7 weeks. Despite the assurances given by the defendant, the son of the plaintiff was sent on 13th Oct, 1986 to work at a place which was 100 kms away from Flora Valley. The disappearance of the plaintiffs son was noticed by the plaintiff in 03rd Deb 1986 and he believed that James was indeed in danger or injury or even death. The plaintiff was only informed about their son being missing after three days. James father was informed over the phone regarding James having eloped from his place of work by a police officer of NSW. As soon as the father heard this news, he collapsed and the conversation was continued by James mother. Skeleton of James was discovered on 29th Apr 1987 after a lot of search. It was revealed later on that James had died as a result of exhaustion, dehydration and hypothermia on 04th Dec 1986. James had died in Gibson dessert which was quite far from the place where he was sent to work by the defendant (Federation Press, 2017). The defendant was blamed to be negligent by the plaintiff for James death. And a case for psychiatric injury caused to the plaintiff due to their sons death was initiated against the defendant by the plaintiff (Health Law Central, 2017). Arguments of Defendant The defendant clearly denies the breach of duty of care on their part and would at the very outset like to state that a duty of care was owed to James and not to the plaintiff. Hence, the very case made by the plaintiff should be rejected. In order to show that the defendant was not negligence, the very basics of this law have to be revisited in this case. Negligence stems from the breach of duty of care, which an individual owed to other (Harvey and Marston, 2009). Six separate elements have to be shown and these are obligation of care, contravention, result of contravention being loss or injury, remoteness, direct causation and lastly, foreseeability (Gibson and Fraser, 2014). For these purposes, the case of Snail in the Bottle, or as is otherwise known Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 can be taken help of (Abbott, Pendlebury and Wardman, 2007). This case depicted that S, as a manufacturer, had a duty of care towards D, the consumer, as the product which was manufactured by S was consumed by D. Due to the contamination of drink as a result of presence of dead snail, the loss was foreseeable here and so, S was held liable. In the present case, the defendant in no case could have the knowledge that by listening to the news of their sons death, a psychiatric injury could be caused to him, as it was not predictable that James would die. So, the duty of care was at the most owed to James but not towards the plaintiff. The defendant would also like to highlight that the plaintiff themselves had been negligent. This can be deduced from the fact that the plaintiff had sent their son to work in an entirely new place with a stranger. Even though the defendant agrees that the plaintiff had enquired about her sons living and working arrangements and even questioned about the safety of her son. But it cannot be ignored that the defendant took adequate steps for locating the plaintiffs son, on the mere doubt that James was in danger (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017). Another case which has to be taken help of for showing duty of care is the case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605. In this particular case, threefold test was presented by the Court of Appeal (E-Law Resources, 2017). Three criteria had to be depicted for showing presence of duty of care, and these are, the imposed duty being fair; risk of harm being reasonably foreseeable; and proximity between parties (Lunney and Oliphant, 2013). In the matter before the court, the duty of care, as already stated was not present. This is due to the lack of direct link which the defendant and the plaintiff had. There was no foreseeability in the psychiatric injury by the defendant in a prudent way. In addition to this, there was no direct causation between the negligence of the defendant and the psychiatric injury of the plaintiff. So, in case the penalties are imposed on the defendant, they would be unfair (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017). With regards to the foreseeability of loss, the defendant would like to highlight the judgment of Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40. In order to show the presence of risk of harm, the judge stated in the quoted case that the view of a reasonable person had to be taken under consideration (Jade, 2017). In the matter before the court, no one, let alone the defendant, could have predicted that a worker would go away and die due to being lost in the desert. James had no purpose which required him to leave the assigned workplace. Hence, a prudent individual could not have foreseen or predicted his death. Also, neither the psychiatric injury was caused to James, to whom the defendant owed a duty of care, nor the same could have been foreseen, due to a lack of duty of care towards the plaintiff (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017). Deane J, in the case of Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52, highlighted the proximity of relationship, as well as, the foreseeability being present in a reasonable manner. This judge viewed that the individual would be deemed to have the capacity of predicting a certain aspect, only after contemplating the given situation. This had to be coupled with the type of relationship which attracted a legal obligation of acting in a manner which shows reasonable care, and for this, the interest of the others had to be considered. So, this case gave two cases for showing negligence, i.e., nature of relationship and the foreseeability of loss (Swarb, 2015). For considering the relationship in the present case, the sort of work which has to be handed over to an employee needs to be evaluated (Robertson and Tilbury, 2016). As has been stated by the defendant number of times, James was owed an obligation of care by the defendant, through the same was only related for the work that had been given to James. This duty was not stretched beyond the terms of the work. Hence, when James wandered off, which led to his death, the defendant could not be stated to have contravened his duties. In reality, James contravened duty of care which he owed to himself. Blaming the defendant for the same is unfair. An employer cannot predict if his employee would take off, so this loss was not foreseeable. Hence, a crucial element of foreseeability of loss was absent in case of the negligence claimed upon the defendant towards James. With regards to the plaintiff, the negligence again cannot be established as there was a lack of lawful relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff of this case. Only the deceased son was owed the obligation of care and that too based on the reasonability of the work given to him (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017). In order to show the presence of psychiatric injury in cases of negligence, it becomes crucial to show that the same resulted from an abrupt fright or when the same is in direct perception which takes place immediately after the incident. In the matter before the court, the disappearance news given to the plaintiff about their son was in a segmented way. Further, the news that James had died was given at a distance and even over a certain period of time. Hence, there was nothing which could be deemed as shock or immediate. Instead, the same could be stated as being agonizingly protracted. Exhaustion, along with starvation, is not things which have been witnessed by a lot of people. So, there was a differentiation in the sudden shock which the plaintiff received and between the parents who witnessed their child being mowed by a car. In the end, the defendant would like to highlight that there was an absence of foreseeability of loss sustained by James and the lack of duty of care owed towards the plaintiff (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017). Courts Verdict Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in this particular case made a unanimous decision and rejected the plaintiffs appeal. Ipp J delivered the noteworthy ruling of this case. He stated that in order to impose an obligation of care on part of the defendant regarding the plaintiffs nervous shock, it had to be foreseeable in a reasonable manner. The plaintiff assumed a normal fortitude and the plaintiff had to exhibit the normal standards of susceptibility so that the claim made by the plaintiff pertaining to the psychiatric injury could be depicted. Along with this, an abrupt sensory perception had to be the outcome of a violation of obligation of care in a physical, as well as, temporal manner on plaintiffs part. Ipp J believed that this had to be shown for the case which could be considered as being so distressful that the psychiatric illness of recognizable nature would be suffered by the plaintiff (Allens, 2017). Stating these two points pertaining to the imposition of obligation of care, which was presented over the defendant of this case, the appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals. The court opined that in the matter of normal fortitude, it could never be foreseeable in a reasonable manner, and so, a claim for a psychiatric injury drawing from the same could not be upheld, merely because the plaintiff had lost their child. A recognized psychiatric injury had to be differentiated from loss of child, which is an ordinary incident and they both fell under different kind of loss. The plaintiff could not show before the court that between the plaintiff and the defendant, there was a certain amount of physical proximity, in time and space sense. Further, the court also held that due to the psychiatric injury taking place far away from where James had died, there was an absence of obligation of care. The court advised the plaintiff to accept that their son was no more and the same was not the d efendants fault. While concluding the case, the court rejected the appeal made by the plaintiff and the defendant was not held negligent (Allens, 2017). References Abbott, K., Pendlebury, N., and Wardman, K. (2007) Business Law. 8th ed. London: Thomson. Allens. (2017) 2001 Annual Review of Insurance Law - Duty of Care, General Tortious and Trade Practices Act Liability. [Online] Allens. Available from: https://www.allens.com.au/pubs/ari/2001/care.htm [Accessed on: 25/05/17] Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2017) Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; 211 CLR 317; 191 ALR 449; 76 ALJR 1348 (5 September 2002). [Online] Australasian Legal Information Institute. Available from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/35.html?stem=0synonyms=0query=Annetts%20v%20Australian%20Station [Accessed on: 25/05/17] E-Law Resources. (2017) Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 House of Lords. [Online] E-Law Resources. Available from: https://www.healthlawcentral.com/cases/tame-v-new-south-wales/ [Accessed on: 25/05/17] Federation Press. (2017) Tame v New South Wales Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd. [Online] Federation Press. Available from: https://www.federationpress.com.au/pdf/Tame%20v%20New%20South%20Wales.pdf [Accessed on: 25/05/17] Gibson, A., and Fraser, D. (2014) Business Law 2014. 8th ed. Melbourne: Pearson Education Australia. Harvey, B., and Marston, J. (2009) Cases and Commentary on Tort. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Health Law Central. (2017) Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited [2002] HCA 35. [Online] Health Law Central. Available from: https://www.healthlawcentral.com/cases/tame-v-new-south-wales/ [Accessed on: 25/05/17] Jade. (2017) Wyong Shire Council v Shirt. [Online] Jade. Available from: https://jade.io/article/66842 [Accessed on: 25/05/17] Latimer, P. (2012) Australian Business Law 2012. 31st ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Limited. Lunney, M., and Oliphant, K. (2013) Tort Law: Text and Materials. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quizlet. (2017) Torts B Lecture #1--Pure Psychiatric Harm. [Online] Quizlet. Available from: https://quizlet.com/45679268/torts-b-lecture-1-pure-psychiatric-harm-flash-cards/ [Accessed on: 25/05/17] Robertson, A., and Tilbury, M. (2016) Divergences in Private Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Sappideen, C., at al. (2009) Torts, Commentary and Materials. 10th ed. Pyrmont: Lawbook Co, pp. 255-63. Swarb. (2015) Jaensch v Coffey; 20 Aug 1984. [Online] Swarb. Available from: https://swarb.co.uk/jaensch-v-coffey-20-aug-1984/ [Accessed on: 25/05/17]