The first arose from that favourite Australian pastime,
drinking: Day v The Ocean Beach Shell Harbour Pty
Ltd,  NSWCA 250. Julia Day was deemed by a security
guard at the Ocean Beach Hotel to be intoxicated. The security
guard pulled the barstool out from underneath Ms Day, who fell to
the ground and was injured. The New South Wales trial judge found
that Checkmate (the company engaged by the hotel to provide
security services) was liable for the assault and battery committed
by its employee, and awarded damages totaling AUS$10,000. By that
point, however, Checkmate had gone out of business, so Day pursued
a claim against the hotel which had contracted for the services of
the guard and the licensee of the bar, alleging that they were
vicariously liable (a claim rejected by the trial judge). She also
challenged the damages awards as inadequate. Her appeal was
dismissed. The security guard was not authorised to commit assault
and battery, only to eject intoxicated patrons; he was not the
agent of the hotel, having no authority to bind it and representing
Checkmate only. The licensee was off the hook by virtue of
provisions of the liquor licensing statute. The damages award was
left alone. In a side comment, Leeming JA noted that Australian law
precludes a finding of dual vicarious liability under which two
different defendants can be liable for the tortious act of a third
person (rejecting the acceptance of such a theory in English
In the second decision (Lloyd v Borg by his Tutor
NSW Trustee and Guardian,  NSWCA 245), the NSW Court of
Appeal held Lloyd was not vicariously liable, as owner of a
four-wheel drive vehicle, for the failure of his common-law wife
(who had 'over-all control' of the vehicle) to supervise
its use by an inexperienced driver while she and Lloyd's
three-year-old son were passengers. The vehicle rolled over in the
bush, and the three-year-old was seriously injured. Lloyd was not
in a position to exercise control over the vehicle, nor had he
asked his partner to use the vehicle in the way that she did.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).