Wyong Shire Council vs. Shirt Case Metrics of Negligence Analysis


Task: Discuss in detail the case between Wyong Shire Council vs. Shirt.


Introduction: The judicial dispute between Shirt, the Plaintiff, and Wyong Shire council is exemplified by the case Wyong Shire Council vs. Shirt: Who the defendants in this court dispute were. When the events occurred in 1980, an occurrence occurred that is the root of the dispute between the two sides. Shirt, a rookie skier with little prior water skiing experience, made the decision to ski in the lake's deep waters. This was accomplished because skiing in deeper waters is simpler than in shallow waters. Now, Shirt considered a sign that stated, "Deep Water," and according to Shirt's analysis, pointed towards the coast of the lake in order to determine if the waters were shallow or deep. Although the seas were fairly shallow, Shirt traversed the region since he thought the information to be accurate. This led to an accident in which his skull was hurt, leaving him paralysed. In the Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt case, the plaintiff, Shirt, sued the Wyong Shire Council in an effort to obtain compensation for the loss of his body's functionality. The plaintiff won the trial in the lower court, and Wyong Shire Council then filed an appeal in the higher court to get their side of the story heard.

The claim against the Defendant Wyong Shire Council was one of duty breach, which was demonstrated by the fact that they failed to foresee the likelihood and extent of the harm that might have beenfall someone—in this case, the plaintiff—as a result of the placement of inaccurate signs near the lake that contained important information. According to the plaintiff, the mistake that severely injured him physically was either made negligently by the defendant or with the intention of leading others astray.

Criteria for Negligence Studying the Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt case can help you comprehend the following:

1. Duty Violation: The defendant has a responsibility to exercise reasonable care, and as a result, the defendant must act in a way that reflects his purpose to exercise reasonable care by taking particular activities that would demonstrate his intents to not be ignorant. It is feasible to prove a breach of duty in this situation if placing the signage wasn't sufficient to qualify as exercising reasonable care.

2. Reasonable Predictability: Currently Reasonable care is directly related to predictability. In the Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt case, the defendant had to have anticipated the potential consequences of their acts on a person in order to be able to exercise reasonable care. When future actions are directly related to care, both negligence and the forfeiture of the duty of care are tests for negligible foreseeing ability (Chapman vs. Hearse, 1961). Standard care entails anticipating potential hazards and taking precautions when certain behaviours have a propensity to have negative outcomes (Green L, 1961). Now, determining whether a risk exists or not comes second to determining whether the wrongdoing was caused by negligence or if it was impossible to recognise a violation of duty (Terry H, 1915).

3. The Negligence Calculus: Once it has been proven that the defendant might have averted the severe consequences that followed by exercising ordinary care, it has been determined that foresee ability was in fact conceivable. After determining foreseeability, negligence is determined using the following criteria:

Probability: If there is a high likelihood that an incident resulting from negligence will occur, then more care should be taken and stricter procedures must be followed.

b. Gravity: It is also important to determine the seriousness and scope of the consequences of the neglect. Even though there is a remote chance that the event may occur, if the consequences are severe, then extreme caution must be exercised. When there is a high likelihood of the event occurring and significant potential damage, extreme caution must be taken. To determine the level of care to be taken, it is crucial to determine both the likelihood of the incident and the size of the losses.