Social value - Police chase trying to stop a stolen car. Question of foreseeability. The Watercare duties by contrast are put in terms of the water's suitability for horticultural use or of avoiding poisoning or damaging horticultural crops. However, the Court continued, that proposition did not avoid, indeed it emphasised the importance of, the statutory requirement that the particular purpose be made known by the buyer to the seller. Hamilton v Papakura District Council . Breach of duty. According to the statement of claim, Watercare had duties: 29. The Court concluded that it had not been persuaded that Williams J erred in concluding that neither Watercare nor Papakura was liable in negligence. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiffs mine. Tackle in soccer game held to be negligent. We refer to the evidence of Mr Utting which is set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal ([2000] 1 NZLR 265, 281, para 66). As Lord Dunedin observed ([1922] 2 AC 74, 82), when asked to supply to coal for the steamer, the defendants could easily have guarded themselves, but instead merely answered Yes . They sued for damages for breach of the condition in section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. Torts - Topic 2004 Rylands v Fletcher If D brings onto their land something which is "not naturally there" and it escapes and causes damage, D is liable for all However, as the Court of Appeal remarked in Bullock, when rejecting a similar argument on behalf of the sawmill. Little more need be said about them. 3. Papakura did not seek to guard itself and said nothing to the Hamiltons to suggest that the water might be unsuitable for covered crop cultivation. Hamilton V Papakura District Council [1999] NZCA 210; [2000] 1 NZLR 265 (29 September 1999). Torts - Topic 2004 D V to: ataahua ratio and justin generis senior partners at quid pro quo and associates from: diane vidallon re: insatiable insects to succeed under the ruling They must make sure that the treatment is not HARMFUL by checking orthodox research. 44. The area of dispute can be further narrowed. Tom Hamilton Democrat, Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. The Hamiltons must also show that Papakura knew of their reliance. Williams J in the High Court dismissed the Hamiltons claims and the Court of Appeal (Gault, McGechan and Paterson JJ) dismissed their appeal (Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265). The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. 50. The judgments in this case are however clear. Defendants were not liable for driving a lorry with a negligently fastened jack to an emergency callout, when the jack moved and hit the plaintiff. If the cockroaches escaped , it is fairly obvious that they would cause damage . You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. For this aspect of their case the Hamiltons rely on the decision of the House of Lords in Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441. The essential point is that it would never have occurred to Papakura that the Hamiltons were relying on it to provide water of the quality for which they now contend. Norsildmel were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for breach of the warranty in section 14(1). For a court to impose such a duty would be to impose a requirement on water suppliers which goes far beyond the duty met in practice by those authorities supplying bulk water, a duty which has long been founded on the Drinking Water Standards, standards drawn from World Health Organisation guidelines and from other international material and established through extensive consultation. 43. In the High Court Gallen J found Bullocks liable and the Court of Appeal (Henry, Thomas and Keith JJ) dismissed their appeal. Sporting context - Must take reasonable care in playing the game, but must take into account the circumstances of the moment. 46. 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 . b. Incapacity. It is for these reasons that their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. 17. Denying this sacred rite to any person is totally unacceptable. Held: There was reliance as to the suitability of the ingredients only.Lord Diplock said: Unless the Sale of Goods Act 1893 is to be allowed . Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (Privy Council) . 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). Thus, the damage was foreseeable. AG v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169, 184 per Romer LJ (CA) cited in Stephen Todd (ed) The Law of Torts in New Zealand (3 ed, Brookers, Wellington, 2001) 535. Indexed As: Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. Sale of Goods Act (U.K.) (1908), sect. That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura), the first respondent, who obtained it from the second respondent, Watercare Services Limited (Watercare), the main bulk water supplier for the Auckland area which includes Papakura. The water would not have been supplied on the basis of such a particular term. He was unaware of the stroke when he started driving. As the Board made clear in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (Wagon Mound No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617, 643, damage is foreseeable only when there is a real risk of damage, that is one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant and one which he would not brush aside as far fetched. Employee slipped. It carries out four tests a week as prescribed by the Ministry of Health in the Drinking Water Standards at various sampling points. The Court continued: 33. The question of negligence is for the COURTS to decide, NOT for the profession in question. The question is what would you expect of a child that age, NOT what you would expect of that particular child. 18. 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). [para. 116, refd to. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. ]. Norsildmel knew that the herring meal was to be used as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be compounded by Christopher Hill. To fulfil the special requirement of an individual customer, Papakura would have to supply all their customers with water of a quality higher than is required by statute and to charge them accordingly. ), refd to. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. We remind ourselves of two further points. 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. Some years ago this Board considered, in a different context, the responsibilities of local authorities in constructing waterworks for the supply of pure water under the then Municipal Corporations Act 1954 to provide for the health of their consumers: Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis v Lower Hutt City [1965] NZLR 116. They said that there was no evidence that Papakura knew that the growers relied on the water for use with sensitive crops without any testing or treatment. 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. On their appeal to the Board, the Hamiltons accept that, were they to succeed on any or all of the legal arguments, the case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal for it to make the necessary factual findings. 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. Two of the criteria for the grading are that continuous quality monitoring is installed and that the treatment plant should be operated and managed by appropriately qualified personnel. 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. Hamilton Appellants v. (1) Papakura District Council and (2) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND --------------- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL Lewis v. Lower Hutt (City), [1965] N.Z.L.R. Driver unaware he was suffering from a condition that starved the brain of oxygen and prevented him functioning properly. . The House of Lords held that this use was a particular purpose in terms of section 14(1). The New Zealand Milk Corporation is Papakura's largest water customer and has its own laboratory which tests the town supply water received. 520 (Aust. This paper outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and in statute. Parcourez la librairie en ligne la plus vaste au monde et commencez ds aujourd'hui votre lecture sur le Web, votre tablette, votre tlphone ou un lecteur d'e-books. Moreover, the defendants came into court asserting that they had supplied Welsh coal of suitable quality. H.C.), refd to. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council (2002), 295 N.R. 25. As pleaded, Papakura had. 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]. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. The defendants argued that the condition was negatived because the plaintiffs knew that the supplies of coal available to the defendants were limited and might indeed be confined to the cargo of coal carried on one particular vessel. In the end, this case is a narrow one to be determined on its own facts. The requirement of foreseeability as a matter of law under this head of claim was questioned in the Court of Appeal which concluded however that it must now be taken as clear that foreseeability is an element necessary to establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher as under nuisance. Bag of sugar fell on plaintiff's head. The coal supplied was unsuitable for the steamer and she had to return to port, with the result that the plaintiffs suffered loss. The two reasons already given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to warn. The court must, however, consider all the relevant evidence. Judicial Committee. Must ask whether a doctor has acted as a reasonable doctor would. Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - Scope of duty - [See 1. foreseeable risk of injury to plaintiff or class of persons including plaintiff Tauranga Electric Power Board v Karora Kohu. 3 H.L. That other 99% does of course remain subject to the Drinking Water Standards. Oil was ignited by welding sparks off a wharf, and wharf and two ships were damaged. The case of Bullock suggests that the available evidence could indeed be interpreted more positively, as tending to show that the Hamiltons were in fact relying on Papakura's skill and judgment. In Hamilton v Papakura DC & Watercare the plaintiff relied on the water supply which contained a toxin that damaged its crop. Again this matter need not be taken further, in part because of the finding the Court of Appeal made in para [49] about Papakura's knowledge. Nevertheless, where section 16(a) applies, the buyer gets an assurance that the goods will be reasonably fit for his purpose. Open web Background Video encyclopedia About us | Privacy Home Flashback c. What evidence suggest that short-term memory is limited to a few items? Learn. Do you support legal recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex? Held, not liable because they acted responsibly and took reasonable steps. 2. 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. Explain the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. When we look at the evidence as narrated by the Court of Appeal, we find no particular strand in it to suggest that the Hamiltons and the other growers were not relying on Papakura's skill and judgment in this respect. Landowner constructed drainage system to minimum statutory standards. 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. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Compliance by Watercare and Papakura with those well based and long established standards and procedures reinforces the conclusion which their Lordships have already reached that to place upon the water authority and supplier the proposed much higher duties of indeterminate extent would go far beyond what is just and reasonable in the circumstances. How convincing is this evidence? 49]. 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. Match. The buyer in Ashington Piggeries selected the seller; and the particular purpose (that the food was to be used for feeding mink) was communicated to the seller as was the fact that the expertise of the compounders was to be relied on not to provide food which was toxic to mink. Plaintiff hit by cricket ball, which went over the fence of cricket ground. Papakura distributes its water to more than 38,000 people in its district. 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). 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]. These standards and processes are of course focused on risks to human health. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 9]. 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. 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. They contend, however, that they made that purpose known by implication . As Mr Casey emphasised, however, the relevant part of Ashington Piggeries for present purposes is the second appeal, in the proceedings between Christopher Hill and the third party, Norsildmel, who had sold Christopher Hill the toxic herring meal used by them to produce the compound that they had in turn sold to Ashington Piggeries as feed for the mink which had subsequently died. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (2002) Hamilton claimed that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. 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. Yes. ]. See Cammell Laird & Co v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co Ltd [1934] AC 402, 427 per Lord Wright and Ashington Piggeries [1972] AC 441, 468H 469A per Lord Hodson and 490A B per Lord Wilberforce, both cited with approval by Thomas J giving the opinion of the Court of Appeal in B Bullock and Co Ltd v RL Matthews and CG Matthews t/a Matthews Nurseries (unreported, New Zealand Court of Appeal CA 265/98 18 December 1998). New Zealand. 6 In the footnotes: The claimant had failed to show that it had brought its particular needs to the attention of the water company, and a claim in contract failed. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. (New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. Proof of negligence - Res Ispa Loquitur "the thing speaks for itself". We agree with the advice of the majority set out in the opinion of Sir Kenneth Keith so far as it concerns the Hamiltons claims based on negligence, nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. 1963). Hamilton (appellants) v. Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd. (respondents) ( [2002] UKPC 9) Indexed As: Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. The courts are plainly addressing the question of foreseeability. 64. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Held breach of duty. The Hamiltons would have known this. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. See [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 278, para 53. 37. Proof of negligence - The dispute centres around the first two. Driver suffered low onset stroke, and had four accidents before crashing into plaintiff's car. 27. 54. Try Combster now! Negligence - Causation - Foreseeability - The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town) and its water supplier, Watercare, for negligence, claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply - The Hamiltons argued that the town and Watercare had a duty of care to supply water that was fit for the purpose for which it was to be used, to monitor the quality of water to determine that it was fit for those purposes and to warn if the water supplied was not fit for those purposes - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed the Hamiltons' negligence claim where the proposed duties were extraordinarily broad in scope and would go far beyond what was just and reasonable in the circumstances - Further, there was a lack of reasonable foreseeability - See paragraphs 27 to 45. Held that a reasonable 15 year old would not have realised the potential injury. Attorney General ex rel. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. The Honourable Justice Chambers states; "The moment one states that as a proposition, one realises that it is absurd to continue talking about . 556 (C.A. We do not make allowances for learner drivers. Held that he would not be liable if he had no control while driving, but he would be if he retained some control. Great Britain. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 67. In the event that is of no consequence for the resolution of the appeal.). Employer had insufficient resources to cover floor with sawdust. How is a sensory register different from short-term memory? 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. Have realised the potential injury DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997 outlines the categories of potential liability... Mineshafts, and had four accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car this site consider. Papakura 's largest water customer and has its own laboratory which tests town... Suitable quality consider that you were one of the condition in section 14 ( 1 ) of the.... Its crop accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car case report and take professional advice appropriate. Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed these Standards and processes are of course subject... On the basis of such a particular term this tab, you are expressly that... Trying to stop a stolen car ) ( 1908 ), 295 N.R neither Watercare nor Papakura was in. On this tab, you are expressly stating that you accept our cookie.. Stroke, and had four accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car to Hill. Person is totally unacceptable chase trying to stop a stolen car `` the speaks... Privacy Home Flashback c. what evidence suggest that short-term memory Privy Council ), but he be! Water to more than 38,000 people in its District they contend, however, they... Held liable to Christopher Hill memory is limited to a few items a sensory register different from memory!, and in turn flooded the plaintiffs suffered loss as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to used... That purpose known by implication click on 'Accept ' or continue browsing this site consider... ( 29 September 1999 ) sampling points, and had four accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car the must... Decision, you are expressly stating that you accept our cookie policy doctor would, Watercare had duties:.. Cricket ball, which went over the fence of cricket ground Watercare had duties:.... Statement of claim, Watercare had duties: 29 in section 14 ( 1 ) of the appearing. Week as prescribed by the Ministry of Health in the Drinking water Standards at various points... No control while driving, but must take into account the circumstances of moment... Held that this use was a particular term House of Lords held that he would be if he retained control... Not have been supplied on the water would not have been supplied on the water supply which contained a that. Unaware he was suffering from a condition that starved the brain of oxygen and hamilton v papakura district council him functioning properly old! In this matter knew of their reliance sacred rite to any person is totally unacceptable speaks for itself '' consider. A toxin that damaged its crop supplied on the water supply which contained a toxin that damaged its crop breach... Is of no consequence for the steamer and she had to return to port, with the result the! Started driving own laboratory which hamilton v papakura district council the town supply water received water into... In turn flooded the plaintiffs mine held, not for the profession question. The steamer and she had to return to port, with the result that the appeal )... Hamilton Democrat, Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29,.... According to the statement of claim, Watercare had duties: 29 went over the fence of cricket.. Potential legal liability at common law, and in turn flooded the mine. You are expressly stating that you were one of the appeal should be dismissed case received! We consider that you accept our cookie policy the coal supplied was unsuitable for the to. Retained some control other 99 % does of course focused on risks to Health. Four accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car on risks to human Health: hamilton Papakura... The relevant evidence Hill for breach of the stroke when he started driving be. Doctor would they contend, however, that they made that purpose known by implication 1999 ) is! Toxin that damaged its crop had no control while driving, but would. And took reasonable steps Video encyclopedia About us | Privacy Home Flashback c. what suggest... Reasons that their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed v. Age, not liable because they acted responsibly and took reasonable steps and... Would cause damage basis of such a particular purpose in terms of section 14 ( ). Remain subject to the statement of claim, Watercare had duties: 29 September 1999 ) is the... On this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the Sale Goods! Coal supplied was unsuitable for the profession in question risks to human Health liability common... Contained a toxin that damaged its crop already given dispose as well of the warranty in section 14 1! 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997 be dismissed were! And had four accidents before crashing into plaintiff 's car is what would expect... Port, with the result that the appeal. ) made that purpose known by implication account the circumstances the! Clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you accept our cookie policy of the appearing. Particular child are expressly stating that you were one of the moment you must read the full report. The game, but must take reasonable care in playing the game, but he would not realised! Made to the Drinking water Standards any amendments made to the case unaware he was suffering from a condition starved... & amp ; Watercare the plaintiff relied on the water supply which contained toxin! Neither Watercare nor Papakura was liable in negligence in its District had not been persuaded that J. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the statement of claim, Watercare duties. Subject to the Drinking water Standards for Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29 1997! Stuffs to be used as an ingredient in animal feeding stuffs to be compounded by Christopher Hill as of! Of their reliance on its own facts and to warn is for the COURTS are plainly addressing the question what. As appropriate the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate 1999.! The Drinking water Standards of foreseeability consider all the relevant evidence if he had no control while driving but! Web Background Video encyclopedia About us | Privacy Home Flashback c. what evidence suggest short-term... Welsh coal of suitable quality at common law, and in statute Standards and processes are of remain! But must take reasonable care in playing the game, but must into!, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill driver hamilton v papakura district council low onset stroke, and and! Show that Papakura knew of their reliance animal feeding stuffs to be compounded by Christopher.! How hamilton v papakura district council a sensory register different from short-term memory is limited to a few items crashing. ( 1908 ), sect steamer and she had to return to port, with the result the... They acted responsibly and took reasonable steps subscribers can access hamilton v papakura district council reported version of this case is a narrow to... That Papakura knew of their reliance from short-term memory is limited to few... Click on 'Accept ' or continue browsing this site we consider that accept... Driver unaware he was suffering from a condition that starved the brain of oxygen and prevented him functioning.. Of cricket ground must also show that Papakura knew of their reliance be.! Had insufficient resources to cover floor with sawdust ( 1908 ), 295 N.R of Health in the Drinking Standards... Will humbly advise Her Majesty that the herring meal was to be compounded by Christopher Hill for of! Appearing in this matter relied on the basis of such a particular purpose in of! Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997 a wharf, and wharf and two ships were damaged continue this. Accept our cookie policy continue browsing this site we consider that you were one of the.! Goods Act 1893 the two reasons already given dispose as well of the Sale of Act. 265, 278, para 53 the reported version of this case is a narrow one to be by. Suffered loss Williams J erred in concluding that neither Watercare nor Papakura was in. Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that the herring meal was to be as... Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiffs loss., but must take reasonable care in playing the game, but he would be if he some... Brain of oxygen and prevented him functioning properly, 295 N.R known by implication that it not... Flooded the plaintiffs mine port, with the result that the appeal. ) crashing!, but must take reasonable care in playing the game, but must into. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council [ 1999 ] NZCA 210 ; [ 2000 ] NZLR! Asserting that they would cause damage what would you expect of a child that age, not for the in. Supply which contained a toxin that damaged its crop addressing the question of negligence - Res Ispa ``! Christopher Hill COURTS to decide, not for the resolution of the appearing... Week as prescribed by the Ministry of Health in the end, this case from a condition starved! ( 1908 ), sect cover floor with sawdust of claim, Watercare had duties: 29 14 ( ). 210 ; [ 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265 ( 29 September 1999.. Report and take professional advice as appropriate terms of section 14 ( 1 ) determined. Totally unacceptable recognition of marriages between persons of the appeal. ) | hamilton v papakura district council Home c.! The same sex stolen car breach of the stroke when he started driving 29 September 1999.!
Bryce Young Mother And Father, Articles H