Case Summaries Week 1 - Case Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Notes
...

Description

Case: McHale v Watson [1964] Involved Parties: -

Plaintiff: o Susan McHale Defendant/s: o Barry Watson (12 y/o) o Herbert Watson (father) o Alice Watson (mother)

Charge: -

Trespass to Person: Battery Negligence (of the parents)

Background Facts: Defendant Barry Watson threw a sharpened metal rod (dart) which struck plaintiff Susan McHale in the right eye causing serious injury. Judgement: Windeyer J. “I accept the defendants statement that he threw the ‘missile’ at the post expecting it to stick in it. It does not put any strain on one’s memory to see this as a boyish impulse. It either missed the post or hit it and glanced off and hit the plaintiff. The latter seems to me far more the likely.” It was also seen that the behaviour of the ‘missile’ through the air, during and post contact with the post could have contributed to incident, due its agricultural characteristics. If Herbert Watson gave Barry the ‘missile’, Watson senior cannot be found guilty of negligence. “A parent does not incur responsibility for a misuse , not reasonably foreseeable, that a child makes of a thing that he could reasonably be expected to use safely.” Ruling: -

Barry Watson found NOT GULITY Herbert and Alice Watson found NOT GULITY

Case: Brady v Schatzel [1911] Involved Parties: -

Plaintiff o Brady Defendant o Schatzel

Charge: Trespass to Person: Assault Background Facts: Accompanied by two other men, the plaintiff went to the defendant’s residence to interview a boy named Richter. Whilst the plaintiff was speaking to the boy outside, the defendant ordered the boy to go inside. The defendant then returned inside and later reappeared carrying a . 447 rifle. She appeared to load the rifle and pointed the muzzle at the plaintiff, saying “This is my law for you bastards. If the lot of you don’t clear out of this, I will put something in your bloody arses.” Brady showed no fear when the gun was pointed at them and did not try to protect himself (was carrying a pistol) on the grounds he didn’t actually believe the defendant would shoot. Judgement: Chubb J. “A person who, by any bodily act or gesture, attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without his consent under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actual or apparently, a present ability to affect his purpose is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.” – Criminal Code s245 “I am of the opinion, therefore, that there was evidence on which the Justices, disbelieving the defendant’s evidence, could reasonably find that the rifle was loaded, in which case, of course, the defendant having the actual ‘present ability’ to affect her purpose, was guilty of assault.” …Assault is not based on whether the plaintiff was a courageous or a timid person. Ruling: -

Schatzel found GULITY

Case: Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001] Involved Parties: -

Plaintiff o Brian Rixon Defendant o Star City Pty Ltd

Charge: Trespass to Person: Battery Background Facts: Mr Rixon was playing roulette on casino premises after being issued an exclusion order, which prohibits a person from entering or remaining in a casino. Employees of Star City Pty Ltd identified Mr Rixon as a person subject to an exclusion order, approached him and a security guard placed his hand on his shoulder to gain his attention. Judgement: “I am not satisfied however, that Sasha Sheldon (security guard) used any degree of force or caused any injury to the plaintiff’s neck or shoulder when he put his hand on the plaintiff’s shoulder while standing at the roulette table.” The trial judge could not accept that Mr Sheldon’s actions could be said to be assault or battery because they lacked “the requisite intention in relation to assault and the requisite anger/hostile attitude in relation to battery.” It was also ruled that the contact was within the grounds of everyday life, and therefore could not be deemed battery. Ruling: -

Star City Pty Ltd found NOT GUILTY

Case: Myer Stores v Soo [1990] Involved Parties: -

Plaintiff o Soo Defendant o Myer Stores

Charge: Trespass to Person: False Imprisonment Background Facts: The plaintiff was shopping at the store of the defendant. Two police officers, in attendance at the store at the same time, were informed by an employee of Myer that there had previously been a shoplifting incident at the store and the perpetrator, the plaintiff, was present in the store. The employee and police officers requested the plaintiff to accompany them to Myer’s security office. After refusing to interview the plaintiff on the spot, they escorted him to the security room. Judgement: “the trial judge was imprisoned from the moment he was spoken to by the police officer until he was allowed to leave the security room. His honour found that, “the police intentionally restrained the freedom of movement of the plaintiff by actively escorting him and passively by making known to him their clear intention to ask him some questions about shoplifting. In my opinion it was made clear to the plaintiff that he had no option but to follow the employee and by being followed by the police it was made clear to him that he had no choice in fact – his freedom of movement had been totally restrained.” Ruling: -

Myer Stores was found GUILTY...