Hamilton v. Papakura District Council (2002), 295 N.R. [para. The extraordinarily broad scope of the proposed duty provides one decisive reason for rejecting the claims in negligence. Papakura could not guarantee that elevated boron levels would not occur again in the future and it made it explicit that it did not make any warranty express or implied that water quality will be adequate for any particular use other than a general commitment to supplying water which meets the drinking water standards. Hamilton Appellants v. (1) Papakura District Council and (2) Watercare Services Ltd. Respondents FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND --------------- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL 6. The Court concluded that it had not been persuaded that Williams J erred in concluding that neither Watercare nor Papakura was liable in negligence. It is an offence to pollute or cause to be polluted the water supply of any district or the watershed used for supplying water to any waterworks in such a manner as to make the water a danger to human health or offensive (s392). b. Council supplied water to minimum statutory standards. The mere fact that certain herbicides may kill or damage certain plants at certain concentrations does not itself establish such a risk. Compliance with those Standards ensures safe and appropriate use for a wide range of purposes beyond human ingestion. Donate. How convincing is this evidence? The requirement of foreseeability as a matter of law under this head of claim was questioned in the Court of Appeal which concluded however that it must now be taken as clear that foreseeability is an element necessary to establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher as under nuisance. (Wagon Mound No. The statutory requirement goes a step further. System caused flooding. bella_hiroki. Held breach of duty. In the next section, we show that the probability distribution for xxx is given by the formula: [para. Must ask whether a doctor has acted as a reasonable doctor would. Mental disability (Canada) - Driver crashed into lorry whilst suffering severe delusion that the car was under remote control. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 3. expense, difficulty and inconvenience of alleviating the risk 47. Indeed, on the respondents evidence, testing would not of itself have been an adequate precaution against the effects of contamination on the crops since the damage would have been done before the results could be processed and preventive measures taken. 20. 6 Hamilton v Papakura District Council (1997) 11 PRNZ 333 (HC) at 339; Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean HC Auckland CP49/97, 19 May 2000 at [18] and [23]; and Chisholm v Auckland City Council (2000) 14 PRNZ 302 (HC) at [33]. That makes no commercial sense. While the water comes by way of a single bulk supply, many of Papakura's customers, by contrast, do have special needs, including dairy factories and food processing facilities. 52. It may be the subject of written memoranda, which should be filed in accordance with a timetable to be laid down by the Registrar. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Breach of duty. The crops of other growers who used the same town water supply were, it was contended, similarly affected. If a footnote is at the end of a sentence, the footnote number follows the full stop. As indicated there, s16(a) (s14(1) of the UK Act) imposes strict liability on the seller if its conditions are satisfied. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. Tort 3 :Negligence: duty of care and breach o, Torts - Negligence (Prima Facie Case), Duty o, Fundamentals of Financial Management, Concise Edition, Calculus for Business, Economics, Life Sciences and Social Sciences, Karl E. Byleen, Michael R. Ziegler, Michae Ziegler, Raymond A. Barnett, Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume, David Twomey, Marianne Jennings, Stephanie Greene. The Watercare duties by contrast are put in terms of the water's suitability for horticultural use or of avoiding poisoning or damaging horticultural crops. Sale of Goods Act (U.K.) (1908), sect. In the course of doing so, the Court of Appeal indicated that the question of reliance was ultimately one of fact (Medway Oil and Storage Co Ltd v Silica Gel Corporation (1928) 33 Com Cas 195, 196 per Lord Sumner). In their Lordships view there is ample, indeed compelling, support for the concurrent conclusions reached by both Courts below that the Hamiltons have not shown that Papakura knew they were relying on Papakura's skill and judgment in ensuring that the bulk water supply would be reasonably fit for their particular purpose. What is a sensory register? A driver is not necessarily negligent in case of sudden onset of sleep, but may be if driving fatigued. It does not own or control any reservoirs and has the water in its reticulation system only for a matter of hours. Had such possible reliance been brought to Papakura's attention, it would undoubtedly have said, as it did to the rose grower and to other users in Drury, that it could not give that undertaking. Held: The defendant . If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. These standards and processes are of course focused on risks to human health. Hamilton V Papakura District Council [2002] NZPC 3 ; [2002] UKPC 9 ; [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (28 February 2002). Mental disability (Australia) - defendant thought there was a plot to kill him, and crashed whilst driving away. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. 6 In the footnotes: Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 2002. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council (2002), 295 N.R. They said that there was no evidence that Papakura knew that the growers relied on the water for use with sensitive crops without any testing or treatment. [para. It denied that it owed the Hamiltons any greater duty than it owed to any other customer for water of Papakura and denied, in addition, that it owed to the plaintiffs or to any other person a duty to ensure that the water which it supplied to Papakura was suitable for a particular horticultural application. Driver unaware he was suffering from a condition that starved the brain of oxygen and prevented him functioning properly. Throughout, the emphasis is on human health. Hamilton (appellants) v. Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd. (respondents). Held, council NOT liable. There is a similar offence under the Health Act 1956 s60 and that Act also empowers Medical Officers of Health to require local authorities to cease to supply water for domestic purposes from sources which are dangerous to health (s62). 1. foreseeable risk of injury to plaintiff or class of persons including plaintiff Court of Appeal Court of Appeal of New Zealand, 1999 0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified,. Over a period of more than four years, triclopyr residues were only very occasionally detected at the sampling sites in the lake, the highest concentration when detection did occur being 0.8ppb or some 125 times less than the 1995 Standard. 3. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. OBJECTIVE test. No negligence. The Hamiltons did not have the necessary knowledge about the purity of Papakura's water supply or about the various factors which might affect it. Flashcards. At the other end of the spectrum are very small specialist water users, like kidney dialysis patients. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Although the decision in Hamilton v Papakura District Councilruled that no liability exists where it is not possible to foresee the type of damage caused, this case is clearly distinguished for the above reason. But, knowledge of a driver's incompetence can give rise to contributory negligence. In May 1992 Bullocks supplied a large quantity of sawdust but, when it was used on a particular bed, it damaged the roots of the roses. Lord Guest, while not attaching undue importance to the precise phraseology, asked himself whether Norsildmel knew that it was likely that it would be fed to mink ([1972] AC 441, 477 E G), while Viscount Dilhorne held that Christopher Hill had to show that Norsildmel 'should reasonably have contemplated when the contract was made that mink was a type of animal to which it was not unlikely that herring meal would be fed ([1972] AC 441, 487 B). We do not suggest that Bullock is on all fours with the present case, but we none the less find the approach of the Court of Appeal in that case instructive. The buyer is to make known to the seller its particular purpose so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill and knowledge. (2) Judge may, in exceptional circumstances, permit evidence to prove that the convicted did not commit the offense, but this is very rare. It necessarily has some characteristics in common The two reasons already given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to warn. Do you support legal recognition of marriages between persons of the same sex? 68. A person suffering an incapacity who willingly puts themselves in a position to cause harm WILL be held to be negligent. In this context, Papakura also called attention to one of its water sources which had been closed in June 1995, a bore source in Drury. [para. Standard of care expected of drivers is the same for ALL drivers. That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura). Open web Background Video encyclopedia About us | Privacy Home Flashback In Hamilton v Papakura DC & Watercare the plaintiff relied on the water supply which contained a toxin that damaged its crop. This ground of appeal accordingly fails. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liabililty under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. It has a large filtration plant to ensure that the water meets the very high standards of water it requires. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. 49]. 39]. 41. Torts - Topic 60 They must prove that they had made known to Papakura their intention to use the water for covered crop cultivation 'so as to show that they relied on Papakura's skill or judgment. Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (Privy Council) . Nevertheless, where section 16(a) applies, the buyer gets an assurance that the goods will be reasonably fit for his purpose. 17. Judicial Committee. Two of the criteria for the grading are that continuous quality monitoring is installed and that the treatment plant should be operated and managed by appropriately qualified personnel. . It was easy enough to fix the leak, and the defendants should have done this. Before the Board, as in the Court of Appeal, the claims against Papakura are in contract and negligence and against Watercare are in negligence and nuisance and under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. 53. Compliance to statutory standards - general principle that if a statute applies, and the defendant complies with the required conduct, this is RELEVANT but NOT decisive in determining liability in negligence. Cited Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd HL 1972 Mink farmers had asked a compounder of animal foods to make up mink food to a supplied formula. Cammell Laird & Co. v. Manganese Bronze and Brass Co., [1934] A.C. 402 (H.L. change. ), refd to. Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Actionable nuisance - What constitutes - [See The Hamiltons argued also that Watercare had created a nuisance under the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher. The water from that bore had been historically high in the element boron which is generally safe for human consumption at the level present but completely unsuitable for horticulture. 4. any conflicting responsibilities of the defendant 48. If it is at the end of a clause, it . CA held that the defendant was physically incapable of taking care and was NOT responsible. The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town) in contract and negligence, claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply. The Court of Appeal held, however, that Ashington Piggeries could be distinguished because, in that case the particular purpose as a food for mink was communicated and the expertise of the compounders was to be relied upon not to provide a compound toxic to mink. (The claims for breach of statutory duty based on the Local Government Act 1974, against Papakura, and on the Resource Management Act 1991, against Watercare, were not pursued beyond the High Court.). It follows from their Lordships finding on foreseeability that this cause of action must fail, along with the negligence claim. They are satisfied, if the reliance is a matter of reasonable inference to the seller and to the Court . Parcourez la librairie en ligne la plus vaste au monde et commencez ds aujourd'hui votre lecture sur le Web, votre tablette, votre tlphone ou un lecteur d'e-books. It explains the common law rights of "natural servitude", and illustrates this with case law examples. See, for example, Hardwick Game Farm [1969] 2 AC 31, 84A-C per Lord Reid. Hamilton v. Papakura District Council et al. We apply the standard of the reasonable driver to learners. They now appeal to Her Majesty in Council. Car ran out of control and killed two pedestrians. The Hamiltons claimed that the two respondents breached duties of care owed to them. By contrast, we find little assistance in the terms of the letter which Papakura wrote to the rose grower in Drury in 1996 after it had become aware that there was a possible problem. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. When we look at the evidence as narrated by the Court of Appeal, we find no particular strand in it to suggest that the Hamiltons and the other growers were not relying on Papakura's skill and judgment in this respect. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Match. The Court of Appeal also quoted that passage, slightly more fully, as follows: 21. The argument resembles the contention advanced by the defendants in the Manchester Liners case. Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 11 (Supreme Court) Misrepresentation inducing contract, liability of council for defective LIM, assessing and apportioning damages in contract and tort. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. contains alphabet). Flashcards. Social value - Police chase trying to stop a stolen car. The simple fact is that it did not undertake that liability. Norsildmel were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for breach of the warranty in section 14(1). Explore contextually related video stories in a new eye-catching way. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, dissenting, dismissed the appeal. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. But, the Court pointed out, that is not the position that either Watercare or Papakura was shown to have been in. The relevant current statute is the Local Government Act. 49. View Rylands v Fletcher.pdf from LAW 241 at Auckland. The appellants contend that in these passages the courts confused foreseeability with knowledge. Mental disability - NZ. 55. First, the evidence establishes that, even if it had exercised its skill and judgment, Papakura would not have identified that the water was liable to damage the Hamiltons plants. 116, refd to. Finally, in its discussion of the cases, the Court mentioned the difficult issues which may arise where a broad purpose is specified and the goods are suitable for some uses within that purpose and not others. The House of Lords unanimously rejected that argument. Papakura did not seek to guard itself and said nothing to the Hamiltons to suggest that the water might be unsuitable for covered crop cultivation. Standard of care in medical profession - Doctor was not negligent if he followed a common practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men (since overturned in Bolitho). It is, of course, correct that, for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, the Hamiltons claim can be distinguished from the counter-claim of Ashington Piggeries Ltd, the buyers, against Christopher Hill Ltd, the sellers, since it was of the very essence of the dispute in Ashington Piggeries that Ashington Piggeries had made it clear that the compound was wanted for only one purpose, as a feed for mink.