Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd
Encyclopedia
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia
, which decided it would abolish the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
, negligence
and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
(1883) 11 QBD 503 and Donoghue v. Stevenson
[1932] AC 562, 580 was liability grounded on general foreseeability (543). The justices therefore felt that the rule should be done away with and so the independent contractor was not liable under that, but could only be culpable in the law of negligence.
High Court of Australia
The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and...
, which decided it would abolish the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
Facts
A fire, caused by an independent contractor’s employee welding negligently, began on the defendant’s premises and spread to a nearby property. The property was burnt. The plaintiff sued under nuisanceNuisance
Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F...
, negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
Judgment
The High Court held that Rylands involved ‘quite unacceptable uncertainty’ (540). It said that Blackburn J’s formulation had been ‘all but obliterated by subsequent judicial explanations and qualifications’ (536). And at the time of Rylands, negligence liability was limited to ‘a miscellany of disparate categories of cases’ and only with Heaven v. PenderHeaven v. Pender
Heaven v Pender 11 QBD 503, Court of Appeal) was an English tort law case, which foreshadowed the birth of the modern law of negligence.-Facts:...
(1883) 11 QBD 503 and Donoghue v. Stevenson
Donoghue v. Stevenson
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 was a decision of the House of Lords that established the modern concept of negligence in Scots law and English law, by setting out general principles whereby one person would owe another person a duty of care...
[1932] AC 562, 580 was liability grounded on general foreseeability (543). The justices therefore felt that the rule should be done away with and so the independent contractor was not liable under that, but could only be culpable in the law of negligence.
Procedural History
- Supreme Court of TasmaniaSupreme Court of TasmaniaThe Supreme Court of Tasmania is the highest State court in the Australian State of Tasmania. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Supreme Court of Tasmania is in the middle level, and is able to both receive appeals from lower courts, and able to be appealed from.The ordinary sittings of the...
: found for the plaintiff against the defendant on the grounds of the ignis suusIgnis suusIgnis suus is a common law principle relating to an occupier's liability over damage caused by the spread of fire. It traditionally imposes strict liability....
rule. - Defendant appealed to the Full CourtFull CourtA Full Court refers to a court consisting of a greater-than-normal number of judges. Thus, in relation to a court usually presided over by a single judge, a Full Court would comprise a bench of three judges; for a court which, like many appellate courts, normally comprises three judges, a Full...
of the Supreme Court of TasmaniaSupreme Court of TasmaniaThe Supreme Court of Tasmania is the highest State court in the Australian State of Tasmania. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Supreme Court of Tasmania is in the middle level, and is able to both receive appeals from lower courts, and able to be appealed from.The ordinary sittings of the...
: found for the plaintiff on the basis of Rylands v FletcherRylands v FletcherRylands v Fletcher [1868] was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris,...
principle. The grounds of nuisanceNuisanceNuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F...
and negligenceNegligenceNegligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
were not appealed. - Appealed to the High Court of AustraliaHigh Court of AustraliaThe High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and...