Horne V Queensland for Causation Laws - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theHorne V Queensland for Causation Laws. Answer: This is a case that is examining the concepts of negligence, and it seeks to examine the liability of the school authority, the truck drive and the state of Queensland, in the accident the plaintiff suffered. In the view of the plaintiff counsel, the evidence against the school was strong, because of the inability of the school to take precautionary care for purposes of ensuring that children of the age of the plaintiff did not have an access to bicycles and riding them to the grounds of tennis court, making them vulnerable to speeding cars and trucks (Gibbons 2014). Additionally, the evidence was strong against the school because of the confirmation that children who go to the tennis court are always under the supervision of their teacher. Despite these assertions by the counsel of the plaintiff, the court observed that there was some considerable evidence that the plaintiff used to cycle to school, but accompanied by his brother, and the bicycle under consideration was defective. Furthermore, the court was concerned with the testimony of the witness concerning the extent of injury that he had (Leslie et al., 2014). This is because the accident had occurred 9 years back; hence, the plaintiff would be unable to accurately recall the extent and nature of injury she had, and the factors that led up to the injury (Barker, et al., 2012). Furthermore, the court took was concerned with the nature and condition of the bicycle before the accident. The court believed that there was enough evidence to proof that the bicycle was defective, and that could be one of the factors responsible for the accident. For purposes of determining the case, the court relied on section 18 and 101 of the 1977 Evidence Act. Basing on the provisions of this act, the court was not persuaded that the driver of there was a negligence case against the driver of the truck. This is because of the efforts of the driver in trying to bypass the girls, when they had an accident (Baker 2016). Additionally, the truck driver had observed traffic rules; hence, the court was not persuaded that he was negligent. On the other hand, based on the provisions of the evidence act, the court found the state of Queensland negligent of breaching their duty of care, on the school authority, because of the decision of the school to allow children of immature age to drive in a dangerous road. The court believed that it is immaterial the fact that the plaintiff used to cycle on the road., and this is because the school had the responsibility of taking care of the safety of children when they are within their control. Moreover, the court also found the school authority to be guilty of negligence because of their failure to take reasonable care in terms of avoiding risks that could threaten the security of the children. Allowing then children to access the tennis court which was near a dangerous road, is an example of such kind of a breach. Reference List Baker, J., 2016. Causation laws should recognise loss of chance.Precedent (Sydney, NSW), (133), p.58. Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M. and Trindade, F., 2012.The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Gibbons, J., 2014.Language and the Law. Routledge. Leslie, K., Bramley, D., Shulman, M. and Kennedy, E., 2014. Loss of chance in medical negligence.Anaesthesia and intensive care,42(3), p.298.