Slams
SLAMS Workshop
October 2013
Problems and Suggested Answers
PROBLEM 1
Jim drove his wife, Betty, to Southern Cross Station, so that she could catch the Melbourne-Sydney express, a special service operated by InterUrban. She was planning to spend a week in Sydney visiting friends.
Having arrived at the station, Jim carried Betty’s luggage on board the train. They had just stepped into the carriage, when the train driver announced over the intercom that the Melbourne-Sydney express would be departing in one minute and that any non-passengers should leave the train immediately. However, neither Jim nor Betty heard the message because of a fault in the carriage’s loudspeaker.
While they were saying their good-byes the train started to move. Startled, Jim ran down the corridor to the carriage door, swung it open and jumped on to the platform. He fell and sustained a compound fracture to his leg and lacerations to his arms and face. He was taken to hospital and spent two months in rehabilitation. His recovery was delayed because of a hospital-acquired infection.
Betty witnessed Jim’s fall, but did not find out about his injuries until after she arrived in Sydney. She returned home immediately and spent every day in hospital by Jim’s side, feeling partly to blame for his injuries. She consequently developed a mental illness, suffering anxiety and depression, and had to take six months’ leave from work.
REQUIRED
Advise Jim and Betty as to their common law rights.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
This problem deals with the tort of ordinary negligence, concerning whether InterUrban is liable in damages to Jim and Betty.
Jim’s claim:
To prove InterUrban was negligent, Jim must, on a balance of probabilities, show the following:
1) a duty of care was owed to him. Under Donoghue v Stevenson, this is shown by fulfilment of the ‘neighbour test’ that it was reasonably foreseeable that InterUrban’s omission to effectively warn of the
October 2013
Problems and Suggested Answers
PROBLEM 1
Jim drove his wife, Betty, to Southern Cross Station, so that she could catch the Melbourne-Sydney express, a special service operated by InterUrban. She was planning to spend a week in Sydney visiting friends.
Having arrived at the station, Jim carried Betty’s luggage on board the train. They had just stepped into the carriage, when the train driver announced over the intercom that the Melbourne-Sydney express would be departing in one minute and that any non-passengers should leave the train immediately. However, neither Jim nor Betty heard the message because of a fault in the carriage’s loudspeaker.
While they were saying their good-byes the train started to move. Startled, Jim ran down the corridor to the carriage door, swung it open and jumped on to the platform. He fell and sustained a compound fracture to his leg and lacerations to his arms and face. He was taken to hospital and spent two months in rehabilitation. His recovery was delayed because of a hospital-acquired infection.
Betty witnessed Jim’s fall, but did not find out about his injuries until after she arrived in Sydney. She returned home immediately and spent every day in hospital by Jim’s side, feeling partly to blame for his injuries. She consequently developed a mental illness, suffering anxiety and depression, and had to take six months’ leave from work.
REQUIRED
Advise Jim and Betty as to their common law rights.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
This problem deals with the tort of ordinary negligence, concerning whether InterUrban is liable in damages to Jim and Betty.
Jim’s claim:
To prove InterUrban was negligent, Jim must, on a balance of probabilities, show the following:
1) a duty of care was owed to him. Under Donoghue v Stevenson, this is shown by fulfilment of the ‘neighbour test’ that it was reasonably foreseeable that InterUrban’s omission to effectively warn of the