Essay About High Court And Analysismaterial Factsms Chadwick

Ms Chadwick Case Study
SID: 13414270[pic 1]Faculty of LawAssessment Cover SheetPrinciples of Tortious LiabilityLAWS11-211_161SEMESTER 161Case analysis Actual Word Count:        1450Due Date:        11/05/2016Tutor:        Iain FieldTutorial Group:        TUT THU 15:00-16:00 Rm.04_2_36TURNITIN receipt #:          CASE ANALYSISMATERIAL FACTSMs Chadwick sustained serious spinal injuries which rendered her a paraplegic when the vehicle she was travelling in as a passenger collided with a tree.[1] The vehicle was driven by Mr Allen who had been drinking alcohol prior to the collision and had a blood alcohol level of 0.229 %.[2] Ms Chadwick was in a relationship with Mr Allen and was also pregnant at the time of the accident.[3]Prior to the collision, Mr Allen, Ms Chadwick and a friend decided to go driving from their hotel at between 1.30 am and 2 am. At this stage, Ms Chadwick was driving. [4] She stopped the car at one point to urinate. The place she stopped was approximately 500 metres from their hotel.[5] She was nevertheless ‘disoriented and considered herself to be much further from the town’.[6] Upon return to the vehicle she was presented with Mr Allen in the driver’s seat telling her to get in as a passenger. Despite minor altercation about who should drive, Ms Chadwick entered as a passenger and Mr Allen drove aggressively and erratically until he lost control.  Ms Chadwick was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. [7]LEGAL ISSUES ON APPEAL Did s 47 of Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA)[8] operate to except Ms Chadwick from the presumption of contributory negligent as she “could not reasonably be expected to have avoided the risk”?Was the “act of stranger” defence to the failure to fasten seatbelt available to Ms Chadwick under s 49 of the Act[9]?THE HIGH COURT REASONING The s 47 issueJustices French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Gordon of the High Court ultimately turned upon the fundamental consideration: whether Ms Chadwick choice to expose herself to the risk of injury by riding with Mr Allen was reasonable. The High Court first categorized two sets of facts as they may reasonably be perceived which bear upon the evaluation of the risks: objective facts personal to the plaintiff and facts of external environment.[10] The High Court further considered whether Mr Chadwick’s subjective characteristics such as impetuosity, helplessness, confusion could be included into the evaluation.[11]