Please answer the question in 30 minutes

Read the hypothetical question down below and respond using the appropriate cases and legislation that are relevant down below.

Note: identify the Issue(s) raised by the facts and the questions, identify the appropriate authority (Rule), Apply the authority to the facts and arrive at a reasoned Conclusion.

Legislations

• Civil Liability Act 2002(NSW)
• Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 (NSW)
• Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW)
• Section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW)
• Section 138(2)(a) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
• Section 140 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
• Section 151O of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)

List of cases

Week 5: negligence: unpacking duty of care

• Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills[1936] AC 85
• Hedley Byrne v Heller[1964] AC 465
• Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd[1970] AC 1004
• Anns v Merton London Borough Council[1978] AC 728
• Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman(1985) 157 CLR 424
• Caparo Industries plc v Dickman[1990] 2 AC 605
• Caltex Refineries Pty Ltd v Stavar[2009] NSWCA 728
• Sullivan v Moody(2001) 207 CLR 562
• Chapman v Hearse(1961) 106 CLR 112
• Chandler v Cape plc[2012] EWCA Civ 525
• Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe[2019] UKSC 20

Week 6: physical Harm and psychiatric harm

• Romeo v Conservation Commission(1998) 192 CLR 431
• Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra [2009] HCA 15
• Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil(2000) 205 CLR 254
• Graham Barclay Oysters v Ryan(2002) 211 CLR 240
• Wyong Shire Council v Shirt(1980) 146 CLR 40
• Rootes v Shelton(1967) 116 CLR 383
• Agar v Hyde(2000) 201 CLR 552
• Tame v NSW(2002) 211 CLR 317
• Annetts v Australians Stations Pty Ltd.(2002) 211 CLR 317
• Wicks v SRA (NSW)(2010) 241 CLR 60

Week 7: Wrongful death and pure economic loss

• Baker v Bolton(1808)
• Derry v Peek[1889] UKHL 1
• Esanda Finance Corp v PMH (1997) 188 CLR 241
• San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979(1986) 162 CLR 340
• ACCC v Kimberly-Clark Australia [2020] FCAFC 107
• Perre v Apand(1999) 198 CLR 180
• Caltex Oil v Dredge 'Willemstad'(1976) 136 CLR 529
• Bryan v Maloney(1995) 182 CLR 608
• Woolcock Street Investments v CDG (2004) 216 CLR 515

Week 8: Duty of care regarding special parties

• Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee(1999) 200 CLR 1
• Amaca v NSW (2004) NSWCA 124
• RTA v Refrigerated Roadways[2009] NSWCA 263
• Cavalier v Pope [1906] AC 428
• Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313
• Jones v Bartlett(2000) 205 CLR 166
• Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
• Astley v Austrust Ltd(1999) 197 CLR 1
• D'Orta-Ekanaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
• Smith v Leurs(1945) 70 CLR 256
• Hahn v Conley(1971) 126 CLR 276

Week 9: Standard of care and breach of duty

• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co(1856) 11 Ex Ch 781
• Benic v NSW[2010] NSWSC 1039
• Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bridge[2018] NSWCA 183
• Rail Corporation NSW v Donald[2018] NSWCA 82
• RTA of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways[2009] NSWCA 263
• RTA v Dederer(2007) 324 CLR 330
• Paris v Stephney Borough Council[1951] AC 367
• Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings(2002) 208 CLR 460
• E v Australian Red Cross Society(1991) 27 FCR 310
• Vaughan v Menlove(1837)
• McHale v Watson(1966) 115 CLR 199
• Carrier v Bonham[2002] 1 Qd R 474
• Imbree v McNeilly[2008] HCA 40
• Rogers v Whitaker(1992) 175 CLR 479

Week 10: Causation

• Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital[1969] 1 QB 428
• March v Stramare(1991) 171 CLR 506
• Adeels Palace v Moubarak(2009) 239 CLR 420
• Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182
• Amaca v Ellis(2010) 240 CLR 111
• Amaca and Amaba v Booth (2011) 246 CLR 36
• Haber v Walker[1963] VR 339
• Mahoney v Kruschich Demolitions (1985) 156 CLR 522
• Cook v Lewis(1961)
• Baker v Willoughby[1970] AC 467
• Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw[1956] AC 613
• McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] 3 All ER 1008
• Fairchild v Glenhaven[2003] 1 AC 32

Week 11: Damage and remoteness

• Cattanach v Melchior(2003) 2015 CLR 1
• Harrington v Stephens(2006) 226 CLR 52
• Re Polemis[1921] 3 KB 560
• Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd(The "Wagon Mound" No 1) [1961] 1 AC 388
• The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617
• Bolton v Stone[1951] AC 850
• Hughes v Lord Advocate[1963] AC 837
• Jolley v Sutton LBC[2000] 1 All ER 409
• Dulieu v White[1901] 2 KB 669
• Stephenson v Waite Tileman[1973] 1 NWLR 152

Week 12: Concurrent liability and defences to negligence

• Hollis v Vabu(2001) 207 CLR 21
• Sweeney v Boylan Nominees(2006) 226 CLR 161
• Prince Alfred College v ADC[2016] HCA 37
• NSW v Lepore(2003) 212 CLR 511
• Burnie Port Authority v General Jones(1994) 179 CLR 520
• Rylands v Fletcher(1868) LR 3 HL 330
• Froom v Butcher[1976] 1 QB 286
• Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
• Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel (1985) 59 ALJR 492
• Reeves v Commissioner of Police[2000] 1 AC 360
• Carey v Lake Macquarie City Council[2007] NSWCA 4
• Miller v Miller[2011] 242 CLR 446

Question:

Alex and Betty are employees of Jane's Farm Pty Ltd. They work the hours stipulated by the Farm's manager. Each day when the women arrive to start work the Farm's manager tells them what tasks need to be completed that day and the women use the equipment provided on the farm. The women don't have a uniform, they can choose what they wear while they work.

The quadbike on the farm has a problem with the brake so the farm manager instructs Alex to fix it. Alex works on the brake but she is in a rush and not paying proper attention and so it is not fixed properly. Alex also forgets to test the brake when she is finished. Alex tells everyone at the farm that the quadbike is now fixed.

Betty takes the quadbike out on a routine trip around the farm to check all the animals have food and water. As a result of the brake failure she can't stop the bike and she swerves into the public nature reserve next to the farm. The bike finally comes to a stop when Betty gets into a horrible accident in the nature reserve.

Carly is a keen bushwalker and is out walking alone in the nature reserve. Carly stumbles onto the accident scene and despite her shock, she immediately tries to revive Betty. She calls emergency services and gets further help but it's all too late and sadly Betty dies. Carly suffers a recognised psychiatric illness because of the events of the day and requires significant medical treatment and leave from work. Carly and Betty had never previously met.

Deb is a close friend of Betty so she is very upset by the news and the death has caused her post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which is a recognised psychiatric illness. Deb requires mental health treatment and several months off work to help her recover.

Using the IRAC method of legal problem solving,advise Carly and Deb on potential negligence claims they each may have. Include in your answera clear identification of:

1. The most appropriate defendant/s for each plaintiff; and
2. The harm or damage that each claim would cover; and
3. The likely success of each claim.

You do not need to consider any potential liability of the public reserve.

You are to assume that the common law as modified by the Civil Liability Act 2002(NSW) applies. Support your answer with the cases and legislation from lectures and tutorials. If the same legal issue is raised in relation to different plaintiffs, you do not need to repeat yourself, you can simply refer back to your discussion of that legal issue.