Tort law and media sensationalism (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

it's these sensationalist, pre-CLA stories which allow insurers to jack up premiums and politicians to adopt crappy tort reform... >.<

High Court upholds $471,000 damages for cut finger

The High Court has found an employer liable for a woman cutting her little finger when she attempted to assemble a doughnut machine without instructions.

The woman, pastrycook Robyn Vanessa Laybutt, initially won $471,000 damages plus costs in a NSW District Court ruling against Sydney company Glover Gibbs.

But the company appealed successfully to the NSW Court of Appeal.

The High Court judges today unanimously ruled that the company had negligently caused injury to Ms Laybutt by rejecting her request for instructions on how to reassemble the doughnut machine.

Ms Laybutt, now 36, had been employed by Glover Gibbs for about six weeks in its Sydney factory in 1999 when her team leader asked her to reassemble the doughnut machine after washing.

...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

My god it's a miracle. A short, unanimous 5 judge HC judgment

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2005/56.html

"The question that this appeal raises is whether, in circumstances in which an employee vainly sought instructions from her employer how to perform an apparently simple task, there was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict by a jury of negligence against the employer."

NSWSC CA obviously made a bit of a slip up

 

[BillytheFIsh]

Bah... where was the special leave point in this case?

Update: Just read the transcript...

McHUGH J: Thank you, Mr Neil. There will be a grant of leave to appeal in this case in the exercise of what we call our visitorial jurisdiction...

If you're bored... skim the transcript for gems like this from McHugh the curmudgeon tearing up a QC and an SC:

McHUGH J: Special leave applications impose a tremendous burden on this Court. We are now sitting one day each week of our hearing time devoted to special leaves. We spend many, many hours reading the applications book, and when we come into Court we want to know what the case is, and the best way to inform us is through the application, and I am afraid your application – whoever is responsible for it, Mr Neil – is highly defective.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

McHUGH J:

Might I say to both sides in this matter that the summary of argument is quite unsatisfactory, particularly from the applicant’s side. The summary of argument should have set out the evidence, the material evidence, a summary of them that would have shown that there was a case to go to the jury. Instead of that at 220 we get seven paragraphs which is headed “Brief statement of the argument” and before that a factual background which really does not tell you what the evidence is – anyway.

heheh

 

[Frigid]

i thought NZ was a non-fault-based system?

 

[BillytheFIsh]

Yeah, NZ is no-fault compensation.

Like workcover, but over your whole life.

I haven't had any first hand experience in NZ, but half the time "no-fault" compensation in workcover ends up just as much as a shitfight as a common law claim anyway.

Basically the difference is between "damages" and "compensation" and people ultimately end up with a whole lot less of an award.

 

[erawamai]

Basically the difference is between "damages" and "compensation" and people ultimately end up with a whole lot less of an award.

I remember reading back in torts how the system fails to compensate people adequately for serious damage.

Not much of a fan of no fault.

 

[erawamai]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...rers-get-richer/2005/11/30/1133311110486.html