+1-817-968-5551
+61-488-839-671
+44-7480-542904About Expert
Requirement
Explain the reasoning of the judges in Carrier v Bonham [2001] QCA 234, [2002] 1 QdR 474. Your answer should demonstrate your understanding of the ways that the judges used rules, principles, and policy considerations in their resolution of the issue of tortious liability.
Solution
Reasoning for the given case:
In this case, Honorable Judges McPherson JA, McMurdo P, Moynihan J based their reasoning on the rules of law and principles and policy.
The Learned Judge McPherson relies on the rule made out in the case of Wilkinson v Downtown (1897) 2 QB 57, it was a famous case, where the defendant played a joke on the wife of plaintiff that the plaintiff had met with an accident and was seriously injured, that shocked the plaintiff's wife and suffered from illness and pain. Honourable Judge Wright had held that the defendant was liable for an act that he did willingly. It was a calculated act to cause harm to the plaintiff. In the case of Bunyan v Jordan (1937) 57CLR1,10, Honourable Latham CJ stated that a person is liable for damages, if he does a deliberate act of a type of calculated act to cause physical harm or injury and actually causes physical harm to that person. McPherson J reasoned that Bonham was liable under the ordinary principles of law of negligence. However, Honorable Judge stated that he was not able to see that harm would be caused to the people in the bus or the Respondent Carrier. Judge McPherson referred rule under the laws of Roman Law and European Continents that provides, a person is not liable for any wrongs committed if he is of unsound mind. The opinion of a Roman Judge was referred, who questioned, as to how can a person who is out of mind be accountable for his fault. In the cases of Donaghy v Breman (1900) 19 NZLR 289 and Morris v Marsden (1952) 1 All ER 925, the defendants were liable for causing harm in spite of being insane. In Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) 58 WALR 56, It was held that, the defendant was liable for negligence, though he was schizophrenic.
Allassignmenthelp.com is the best writing service that has assisted numerous students in achieving their academic goals. By seeking employment law assignment help and support from our website, you will gain a better understanding of the subject. Never forget whether you need taxation law essay help or constitutional law assignment help, we are just a call away from you!
Honourable Judge also referred to the contradictory judgment in Buckley v Toronto Transport Company v Smith Transport Limited (1946) 4 DLR 721, wherein the Court held that truck driver suffered from delusions, so he was not in a position towards the duty of care or exercising, thus it was not liable. Though His Lordship suggested a reason from drifting from the norm, in rare cases, a person may not be liable for the tort if he gets an unexpected fit due to epilepsy or hypoglycemia or due to acts of God, where the act has not resulted due to the defendant. This reasoning by established rule of law that the criteria for determining negligence is based on the conduct or acts an ordinary man of prudence would do. Honourable Judge also considered the analogy with the tortious liability in children. It was held in the case of McHale v Walson (1966) 115 CLR 199, that conduct was to be determined not by what an ordinary man of prudence would do, but it should be judged on what an ordinary boy of twelve would foresee and his prudence.
Relying on the modern psychiatric practices and humane methods and liberty of movement, Honourable Judge McPherson questioned Bonham's escape from the hospital and stated that it is not any more in practice in psychiatry to keep the persons like Bonham in strict custody conditions. Liberty of movement is considered good for persons in a sad state of schizophrenia as more humane treatments exist then. Their conduct of taking advantage of liberty and venturing out for some time is not wrong. Their actions should be determined on the basis of the standards of society and duty of due care and that of reasonable foreseeability or else it will go back to inhumane practices in furtherance of their treatment.
By all the above reasons, Honorable Judge McPherson stated that the defendant was liable in negligence to the plaintiff and that the defendant's condition of unsound mind cannot relieve him of his liability. Defendant's conduct has to be determined by the person with the reasonable and ordinary standard. His mental capacity had nothing to do with the due care that he owed to the plaintiff.
With regards to reduction in quantum of damages, the Court referred to the principles laid down in the cases of Elford v General Insurance Company Limited (1994) 1 Qd R 258 and Brown v Hale (1996) 1 Qd R 234, and held that in view of the decision of trial judge, damages awarded was just substantial, thus, any change in reduction would be very small for the court to decide.
Honorable Judges Moynihan and McMurdo P both agreed with the analytical approach and the reasons based on principles of the given case laws and the rules of law.
However Honorable Judge McMurdo P stated that the act of the appellant was calculated, so as to cause harm to the respondent driver and the principle in Wilkinson v Downtown should be applicable and the word calculated should be given the same meaning in the given case, thus, appellant was liable for the negligence, due to which the respondent was injured and was also liable for the cause of action.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the students
Place Your OrderConclusion:
It was shocking, while reading the judgement, as a person of unsound mind needs a sympathetic attitude. His act of negligence is a part of his mental illness. A schizophrenic person is not aware of the things he is doing, his negligence cannot be compared with that of an ordinary man of prudence, thus he cannot be held liable for negligence. The Courts must have a lenient approach and the laws must be comprehensive for the schizophrenic persons
References
-
"Negligence. Comparative Negligence. Wanton Negligence Of Defendant As Precluding Defense Of Contributory Negligence Of Plaintiff" (1931) 17 Virginia Law Review
-
NORTH, P. M., "CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS" (1967) 16 Int Comp Law Q
-
(2016)
-
Bunyan V Jordan (1937) 57 CLR 1 | Student Law Notes - Online Case Studies, Legal Resources And Audio Summaries (2016) Studentlawnotes.com
-
Supreme Court Library Queensland | (2016) Sclqld.org.au
-
Supreme Court Library Queensland | (2016) Sclqld.org.au
Give your grades a boost
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
-
1,168,768 Orders
-
4.9/5 Overall Rating
-
5,052 Experts
