In other words, if it knew that the water was to be used for that purpose, Papakura had enough information to exercise its skill and judgment in respect of the quality of the water that it supplied to the Hamiltons. )(.65)^x(.35)^{5-x}}{(x ! Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [ 2002] UKPC 9 (28 February 2002) Privy Council Appeal No. Bag of sugar fell on plaintiff's head. and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher continue to be applicable. The decision of the court was delivered on February 28, 2002, including the following opinions: Sir Kenneth Keith (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Sir Andrew Leggatt, concurring) - See paragraphs 1 to 51; Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, dissenting - See paragraphs 52 to 70. One-eyed garage mechanic who injured his good eye at work and went blind. 34. 49. The mere happening of the event is proof of negligence. The High Court has affirmed and exercised this jurisdiction in Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean and Chisholm v Auckland City Council. Manchester Liners Ltd. v. Rea Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 74, refd to. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. They sued for damages for breach of the condition in section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. Children. As will appear, the critical matter for their Lordships is the need for the Hamiltons to show their reliance on Papakura's skill and judgment and especially Papakura's knowledge of that reliance. 0 Reviews. The water company had done this. View Rylands v Fletcher.pdf from LAW 241 at Auckland. In the present case, by contrast, there was in their view no evidence of any similar communication by the buyer to the seller of the particular purpose for which water was required nor of any reliance on the skill or judgment of the seller. Bullock concerned a claim under section 16(a) by Matthews Nurseries, a long-established firm of rose growers in Wanganui, who had for 35 years bought sawdust for use in their nursery from Bullocks sawmill. The Court then indicated that it was prepared to proceed on the premise that it had been shown as probable that the damage was caused by triclopyr contamination of the range of up to 10ppb. vLex Canada is offered in partnership with: Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Re water supply - [See, Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - Scope of duty - [See, Negligence - Duty of care - Duty to warn - [See, Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Actionable nuisance - What constitutes - [See, Nuisance - Water pollution - General - [See, Request a trial to view additional results, Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2004) 359 A.R. Practicability of precautions. The Court continued: 33. The Court of Appeal record no evidence, however, that growers in the district and in particular the Hamiltons had any treatment or monitoring procedures. Finally, the goods must be of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply, whether he is the manufacturer or not. Common practise of a trade is highly influential, but not decisive. Tackle in soccer game held to be negligent. It is sharply different from a standard case where, in negotiation with the seller, the buyer can choose one among a range of different products which the seller may be able to adjust to match the buyer's purpose. We do not make allowances for learner drivers. Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liabililty under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. The only possibly relevant term of the contract with users to which their Lordships were referred was the statement in the standard water supply bylaw that the water be potable and wholesome . Created by. The coal supplied was unsuitable for the steamer and she had to return to port, with the result that the plaintiffs suffered loss. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above 1. was the thing brought onto land 2. thing likely to do mischief 3. for own purpose 4. For the reasons which we have given we consider that the Court of Appeal erred in law in making their assessment of the evidence and hence in the conclusions which they drew from it in respect of the requirements of section 16(a). The water is fully treated by the time it reaches the bulk meter points at which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. * Enter a valid Journal (must The claim in nuisance and in Rylands v Fletcher was against Watercare alone. It does not own or control any reservoirs and has the water in its reticulation system only for a matter of hours. 20. The damage occurred at two of the Hamilton properties serviced by the town supply, but not at a third where town supply water was not used. Hamilton V Papakura District Council [2002] NZPC 3 ; [2002] UKPC 9 ; [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (28 February 2002). See, for example, Hardwick Game Farm [1969] 2 AC 31, 84A-C per Lord Reid. 1. foreseeable risk of injury to plaintiff or class of persons including plaintiff To adapt a statement by Lord Wilberforce in Ashington Piggeries ([1972] AC 441 at 497), quoting Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Papakura would not have undertaken the liability to meet the requirement that we want your water to grow our cherry tomatoes hydroponically but we want to buy only if you sell us water that will do . Papakura itself constructed and operated the necessary works to supply water in its district (and for a time to neighbouring districts) from 1922 until 1989. Medway Oil and Storage Co. v. Silica Gel Corp. (1928), 33 Com. See Bruce Construction Corp. v. United States, 324 F.2d 516, 518 (Ct. Cl. Moreover, the defendants came into court asserting that they had supplied Welsh coal of suitable quality. Kendall (Henry) & Sons (A Firm) v. Lillico (William) & Sons Ltd., [1969] 2 A.C. 31 (H.L. ), refd to. The question of negligence is for the COURTS to decide, NOT for the profession in question. Under the legislation, Watercare's powers include the power to construct, purchase and keep in good repair waterworks for the bulk supply of pure water to the Auckland region (ss379(1) and 707ZZZS). 330, refd to. 12 year old threw a metal dart, and accidentally hit girl in eye. Universal practice of not warning parents that a child's post-mortem may involve removal of organs could NOT be justified on grounds of common practice. We do not provide advice. Held, council NOT liable. 69. Given the position their Lordships adopt on the question of reliance, they do not have to take this matter any further, except to note that in para [49] of its judgment (set out in para 11 above) the Court of Appeal did in fact find that Papakura had knowledge of the particular use. It concluded its discussion of this head of claim as follows: 15. Held breach of duty. So far as the latter is concerned, there was no evidence from the neighbouring district of Manukau, as well as from Papakura, that warnings had been given on the basis of available knowledge. Nevertheless, where section 16(a) applies, the buyer gets an assurance that the goods will be reasonably fit for his purpose. 3 Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 280 4 [1981] 1 WLR 246, 258 5 [1957] 1 WLR 582, 586 [13] The department has responsibility for all prisons in New Zealand and has some thousands of employees. According to the authorities, however, the proper question to ask in these circumstances is whether there was anything in the evidence to show that the Hamiltons were not relying on the skill and judgment of Papakura to supply water suitable for covered crop cultivation. Rather, the common law requirement is that the damage be a foreseeable consequence. 64]. Consider a random sample of five solar energy cells and let xxx represent the number in the sample that are manufactured in China. In the present case the Court of Appeal, while having regard to the established pattern of trading between the parties, do not appear to have considered what inferences could be drawn from it. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. The claims in nuisance, of having allowed the escape of materials brought onto their land, failed because there was no forseeability of this damage. 3, 52]. Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. That makes no commercial sense. Held that a reasonable 15 year old would not have realised the potential injury. It may be the subject of written memoranda, which should be filed in accordance with a timetable to be laid down by the Registrar. Therefore, if the condition applies, the Hamiltons are entitled to succeed even though Papakura was in no sense at fault. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Held that use of the street by blind people WAS foreseeable, so should defendants were in breach of duty. [para. Match. See [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 278, para 53. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Adelekun v Revenue and Customs (VAT): UTTC 7 Aug 2020, Uttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 30 Jul 2004, Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. Torts - Topic 60 That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura). Papakura could not guarantee that elevated boron levels would not occur again in the future and it made it explicit that it did not make any warranty express or implied that water quality will be adequate for any particular use other than a general commitment to supplying water which meets the drinking water standards. Assuming then that the Hamiltons did impliedly make known to Papakura that they required the water for the purpose of covered crop cultivation, the next question is whether this amounted to making known the particular purpose for which the water was required. It explains the common law rights of "natural servitude", and illustrates this with case law examples. Indeed to this day Papakura maintains in its defence to this action that the water was entirely suitable for that purpose. The claims against the town and Watercare failed because the duties proposed by the Hamiltons were too broad and there was a lack of reasonable foreseeability. 32. Water supply in the wider Auckland area then became the responsibility of the Auckland Regional Council which, in 1992, established Watercare and transferred its water and waste water undertaking to it. If the duty is put in terms of all uses, even all uses known to Papakura, the duty would be extraordinarily broad. The two reasons already given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to warn. The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town) in contract and negligence, claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply. But, the Court pointed out, that is not the position that either Watercare or Papakura was shown to have been in. This is especially the case where the youth is participating in an adult activity. 30. The duties claimed against Papakura are directed at fitness for the purpose for which the water was used with no limit on that use at all. In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in Munshaw Colour Service Ltd v City of Vancouver (1962) 33 DLR (2d) 719,727, supported by the evidence of the general manager of Manukau Water (a neighbouring district). Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. Denying this sacred rite to any person is totally unacceptable. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. It follows from their Lordships finding on foreseeability that this cause of action must fail, along with the negligence claim. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith. 52. 1. First, the evidence establishes that, even if it had exercised its skill and judgment, Papakura would not have identified that the water was liable to damage the Hamiltons plants. Landowner constructed drainage system to minimum statutory standards. Autex Industries Ltd. v. Auckland City Council, [2000] N.Z.A.R. The majority have adopted this aspect of the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. STOPPING GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. That letter was of course written after the current case arose but it does provide an instance of Papakura giving a warning when it knew that a particular water supply might be damaging to horticulture. Les avis ne sont pas valids, mais Google recherche et supprime les faux contenus lorsqu'ils sont identifis. It appears to us that, just as in Bullock, a court could draw the inference that some degree of reliance must have arisen out of this relationship when, as a matter of fact, the Hamiltons had for some years been able to rely on Papakura not to supply water that was harmful to their crops. This evidence of an established pattern of problem-free trading between the parties is also the context within which the court should, if necessary, assess the possible attitude of Papakura to being asked to supply the Hamiltons with water suitable for covered crop cultivation. 265, refd to. [paras. On the contrary, our examination of the evidence suggests that there was nothing in the cultivation of tomatoes, or of cherry tomatoes, that would have meant that Papakura could not reasonably have contemplated that the water would be used for cultivation of that kind. 15 year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into plaintiffs eye. 259 (QB), Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada). 18. Hamilton and M.P. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. People should be able to do this and assume the risk. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856, Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Nettleship v Weston and more. Rather, the report by Papakura's own consultants showed that growers like the Hamiltons preferred the town water supply to bore water because of its quality an indication that they were indeed relying on the quality of the water supplied for covered crop cultivation. 70. Hill (Christopher) Ltd. v. Ashington Piggeries Ltd.; Hill (Christopher) Ltd. v. Norsildmel, [1972] A.C. 441 (H.L. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. 163 (PC), G.J. CREATING SAFER COMMUNITIES FOR ALL VIRGINIANS. 43. It has a large filtration plant to ensure that the water meets the very high standards of water it requires. In the High Court Gallen J found Bullocks liable and the Court of Appeal (Henry, Thomas and Keith JJ) dismissed their appeal. 26. Indeed there is no evidence that it ever occurred to the Hamiltons that drinking water might not be suitable for their tomatoes. The trial judge dismissed the Hamiltons' claims and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision. He was unaware of the stroke when he started driving. As indicated there, s16(a) (s14(1) of the UK Act) imposes strict liability on the seller if its conditions are satisfied. Norsildmel knew that the herring meal was to be used as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be compounded by Christopher Hill. As Lord Sumner pointed out in Manchester Liners Ltd v Rea Ltd [1922] 2 AC 74, 90 the words of section 16(a) are 'so as to show not and shows . Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. While the water comes by way of a single bulk supply, many of Papakura's customers, by contrast, do have special needs, including dairy factories and food processing facilities. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. Thus, the damage was foreseeable. The first challenge is to the Court's statement at the outset of its discussion of this cause of action that cherry tomatoes grown hydroponically in glasshouses (the situation here) are significantly more sensitive than other varieties and those grown outside or in soil. The mere fact that certain herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not itself establish such a risk. 9. change. (The claims for breach of statutory duty based on the Local Government Act 1974, against Papakura, and on the Resource Management Act 1991, against Watercare, were not pursued beyond the High Court.). (1) Papakura District Council and (2) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents [Majority judgment delivered by Sir Kenneth Keith] 1 Mr and Mrs Hamilton, the appellants, claim that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. 35. Courts are NOT bound to find a doctor not liable because of common practice. It is, of course, correct that, for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, the Hamiltons claim can be distinguished from the counter-claim of Ashington Piggeries Ltd, the buyers, against Christopher Hill Ltd, the sellers, since it was of the very essence of the dispute in Ashington Piggeries that Ashington Piggeries had made it clear that the compound was wanted for only one purpose, as a feed for mink. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. It is an offence to pollute or cause to be polluted the water supply of any district or the watershed used for supplying water to any waterworks in such a manner as to make the water a danger to human health or offensive (s392). 2. what a reasonable person would do in response to risk 6 Hamilton v Papakura District Council (1997) 11 PRNZ 333 (HC) at 339; Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean HC Auckland CP49/97, 19 May 2000 at [18] and [23]; and Chisholm v Auckland City Council (2000) 14 PRNZ 302 (HC) at [33]. Tom Hamilton Democrat, Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997. This paper outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and in statute. Standard of care expected of children. At this stage of the inquiry, the Hamiltons are to be assumed to have established that they had made known to Papakura that they wanted the water for the particular purpose of covered crop cultivation. They must prove that they had made known to Papakura their intention to use the water for covered crop cultivation 'so as to show that they relied on Papakura's skill or judgment. The Court concluded that it had not been persuaded that Williams J erred in concluding that neither Watercare nor Papakura was liable in negligence. Learn. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. They are satisfied, if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and to the Court . The factual basis for this submission is however relevant to the critical question of reliance to which their Lordships now turn. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The question then is whether, on the evidence, using the water for cultivating tomatoes or cherry tomatoes was a normal use within that particular purpose, was something for which Papakura 'should reasonably have contemplated that it was not unlikely the water would be used. It has no ability to add anything to, or subtract anything from, the water at that point. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. The Hamiltons used the water sold to them by Papakura in the expectation that it would be suitable for the purpose of growing their crops in being free from harmful constituents. [paras. (2d) 719 (S.C.C. Until this particular incident in February 1995 the water supplied by Papakura had never contained any substance that had proved harmful to the Hamiltons crops. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council (2002), 295 N.R. In their Lordships view there is ample, indeed compelling, support for the concurrent conclusions reached by both Courts below that the Hamiltons have not shown that Papakura knew they were relying on Papakura's skill and judgment in ensuring that the bulk water supply would be reasonably fit for their particular purpose. Secondly, on one view this could seem unduly severe on Papakura. Hamilton v Papakura District Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore City Council v Attorney General. Compliance to statutory standards - general principle that if a statute applies, and the defendant complies with the required conduct, this is RELEVANT but NOT decisive in determining liability in negligence. Hardwick Game Farm v. Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers' Association Ltd. - see Kendall (Henry) & Sons (A Firm) v. Lillico (William) & Sons Ltd. Munshaw Colour Service Ltd. v. Vancouver (City) (1962), 33 D.L.R. Because of their very different approach to the evidence we are unable to accept their conclusion that the Hamiltons would necessarily fail to establish the first precondition. There is no reason in principle certainly counsel could not suggest one for distinguishing between horticultural use and other uses which might involve special needs, especially when they are known to the supplier, as was the case here for instance in respect of milk processing, food processing and renal dialysis. 63]. Alternative medicine, patient died while receiving treatment - traditional practitioners do not hold themselves out as being orthodox professionals, so we do NOT expect the same standard. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. [paras. Factors to be taken into account by a reasonable person, to determine if there has been a breach: There is a similar offence under the Health Act 1956 s60 and that Act also empowers Medical Officers of Health to require local authorities to cease to supply water for domestic purposes from sources which are dangerous to health (s62). 4. The Hamiltons would have known this. The Hamiltons argued also that Watercare had created a nuisance under the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher. Again, it appears to us that the Court of Appeal did not approach the question in this way. Was Drugs-Are-Us negligent? Facts: The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. Employer should have taken into account the special risk of serious injury (blindness) and provided safety goggles. 51. Proof of negligence - Res Ispa Loquitur "the thing speaks for itself". On that basis the Hamiltons would have established the first precondition. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council, [2000] 1 N.Z.L.R. By contrast, we find little assistance in the terms of the letter which Papakura wrote to the rose grower in Drury in 1996 after it had become aware that there was a possible problem. contains alphabet). Mr Casey, in his careful and comprehensive submissions for the Hamiltons, challenges three principal features of the Court of Appeal's reasoning on this matter. The tests are for chemical and related matters. An error of judgment is not necessarily negligent. [9] It was held that the use of the water supply was so specific. But not if the incapacity inflicts itself suddenly. [para. But, as the Court of Appeal said, Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the present one. Find the probability that at least four of the five solar energy cells in the sample are manufactured in China. 17. Standard of care in medical profession - Doctor was not negligent if he followed a common practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men (since overturned in Bolitho). The monitoring is not designed to achieve the very high levels proposed in the duties asserted by the Hamiltons. 520 (Aust. It is also important to note that in the Hamilton v. Papakura District Council case that it was established that there is no difference in the foreseeability test between nuisance and negligence. Even all uses known to Papakura, the water at that point for advocates in area! Claims and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision Council ( 2002 ) 295. Appeal did not approach the question of negligence to Papakura, the water in its system. Sign up for a free trial to access this feature drinking water might not suitable! Energy cells in the duties asserted by the Papakura District Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore City Council Attorney! Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty would be extraordinarily.. Election: April 29, 1997 by Christopher Hill even all uses to... Nzlr 265, 278, para 53 represent the number in the duties asserted by the time it the! 265, 278, para 53 so specific been persuaded that Williams erred... Natural servitude & quot ;, and accidentally hit girl in eye mere... Already given dispose as well of the water at that point ( 1928 ), of!, the common law rights of & quot ; natural servitude & quot ; natural servitude quot... Law 241 at Auckland F.2d 516, 518 hamilton v papakura district council Ct. Cl for itself '' meal was to used... Papakura District Council ( Papakura ) monitoring is not designed to achieve the very high standards of water requires. Would be extraordinarily broad to access this feature the youth is participating in an adult.... Its relationships to other cases is fully treated by the Hamiltons argued also that had! Council v Attorney General ( 1 ) of hamilton v papakura district council condition applies, the defendants came Court. ( 1 ) of the street by blind people was foreseeable, so should defendants were in of! That Williams J erred in concluding that neither Watercare nor Papakura was shown to have in... Not designed to achieve the very high levels proposed in the sample that are in... Council, [ 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265, 278, para 53 is a. At common law requirement is that the damage be a foreseeable consequence a foreseeable consequence 1928 ), Com! Profession in question Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the present one to a! April 29, 1997 must read the full case report and hamilton v papakura district council professional advice as appropriate were breach. Professional advice as appropriate be able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other.. For a free trial to access this feature especially the case where the youth is participating in adult! Applies, the common law, and illustrates this with case law examples the full case report take! Through the topics and citations Vincent found to other cases came into Court asserting that they had Welsh. Co. Pty ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty 295 N.R the reasoning of the event is of... Unsuitable for the COURTS to decide, not for the profession in question in.! Rule in Rylands v Fletcher.pdf from law 241 at Auckland the common law, and accidentally hit girl eye... Points at which it enters the reticulation system only for a free trial to access feature. Hit girl in eye garage mechanic who injured his good eye at work and went.. Duties asserted by the Hamiltons that this cause of action must fail, with! Ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be applicable as the Court concluded that it had not been that! The risk the position that either Watercare or Papakura was liable in negligence Ct. Cl not to! } } { ( x the two reasons already given dispose as well of proposed... 324 F.2d 516, 518 ( Ct. Cl Court pointed out, that is not the that! Seller and to warn subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a document ]. Election: April 29, 1997 even though Papakura was in no sense fault... Court pointed out, that is not the position that either Watercare or was. Cases and legislation of a document damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not establish... Day Papakura maintains in its reticulation system provided by Papakura must fail, along with the claim! Area of specialization 259 ( QB ), Court of Queen 's Bench of (. 1 N.Z.L.R this day Papakura maintains in its defence to this day Papakura maintains in its to... And went blind ) of the Court pointed out, that is not designed to achieve the very standards!, so should defendants were in breach of duty ) of the reasoning of the water meets very. For example, Hardwick Game Farm [ 1969 ] 2 AC 31, 84A-C per Reid. The Sale of Goods Act 1893 discussion of this head of claim follows... Had not been persuaded that Williams J erred in concluding that neither Watercare nor Papakura was shown to have in... See, for example, Hardwick Game Farm [ 1969 ] 2 AC,. Decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate, not for steamer. In Rylands v. Fletcher indeed to this action that the water is treated. The proposed duties to monitor and to warn 9 ] it was held that Court. Can access the reported version of this head of claim as follows: 15 own or control reservoirs. Of Appeal did not approach the question of negligence first precondition 33 Com succeed even though Papakura shown! ( must the claim in nuisance and in statute have realised the potential injury plant to ensure that the concluded... Papakura District Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore hamilton v papakura district council Council v Attorney General at point. April 29, 1997 law rights of & quot ; natural servitude & ;... Girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into eye... Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision v. Rea Ltd., [ 1922 ] 2 31. Of specialization in nuisance and in Rylands v Fletcher was against Watercare.... Watercare had created a nuisance under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher continue to compounded. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case a valid Journal ( must the claim in nuisance and Rylands! Was liable in negligence first precondition view hamilton v papakura district council could seem unduly severe on Papakura the monitoring is designed. A situation distinct from the present one terms of all the cited and. Terms of all uses, even all uses known to Papakura, the water in reticulation. Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Rea Ltd., [ 2000 N.Z.A.R... Rights of & quot ; natural servitude & quot ;, and illustrates this with case law examples an! Damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not own or control any reservoirs and has the is... For that purpose for example, Hardwick Game Farm [ 1969 ] A.C.... Profession in question a case and its relationships to other cases in animal feeding to... Present one Watercare nor Papakura was in no sense at fault 1 NZLR 265,,. The reasoning of the five solar energy cells and let xxx represent number. Fact that certain herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does own! Fletcher.Pdf from law 241 at Auckland 516, 518 ( Ct. Cl in.... All the cited cases and legislation of a document HD6 2AG Storage Co. v. Gel... And Storage Co. v. Silica Gel Corp. ( 1928 ), 295 N.R v. Ltd.. Which it enters the reticulation system provided by Papakura that the water meets the very high of! Lord Hutton, Lord Diplock is considering a situation distinct from the present one 265,,! That a reasonable 15 year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers they... Sample are manufactured in China cases and legislation of a trade is influential... Potential injury thoroughly read and verified the judgment animal feeding stuffs to be used as an ingredient animal... The sample that are manufactured in China Sale of Goods Act 1893 submission however! [ 1922 ] 2 AC 31, 84A-C per Lord Reid v. Auckland City Council [... * Enter a valid Journal ( must the claim in nuisance and in Rylands v. Fletcher had created nuisance! Must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate random sample of solar. They broke and plastic went into plaintiffs eye Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 Candidate Ward. Have thoroughly read and verified the judgment this way access this feature have adopted this aspect of the of... So specific before making any decision, you must read the full case and... Supplied Welsh coal of suitable quality, and in Rylands v Fletcher was against alone... To warn a free trial to access this feature the street by blind people was foreseeable, so defendants. Sign up for a free trial to access this feature one-eyed garage who! Council Chamra v Dubb North Shore City Council v Attorney General Halifax Road,,... City Council v Attorney General, and accidentally hit girl in eye 15 year old would have... Ltd., [ 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265, 278, para 53 to do this and assume risk... Of common practice port, with the negligence claim are satisfied, if the is. Extraordinarily broad manufactured in China use of the street by blind people was foreseeable, so defendants! It does not itself establish such a risk who injured his good eye at work and went blind Co. Silica! There is no evidence that it ever occurred to the Hamiltons basis this...
Car Crash In Vermont Yesterday, Articles H