Case Of Romeo V Conservation Commission

The purpose of this paper is to discus about the case of Romeo v Conservation. This case belongs to the High Court of Australian common law liability of a public authority. The fact of this case is related to an accident when Nadia Romeo met an accident as falling over the edge in April 1987. She was less than sixteen years old during rendered paraplegic because of that accident. The accident that was occurred in the Casuarina Coastal Reserve as falling over the edge of the cliff onto the beach below had neither witnesses nor appellant has ever remembered the circumstances of the fall (Kluwer, 2022). However, she claimed damages in the Court against the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory.

Romeo v Conservation Case Discussion

In the case of Romeo v Conservation in which Romeo claimed damages against respondent (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory) in the high court because of suffering serious injuries that caused high level paraplegia was considered as serious case. The respondent was a public authority or the Commission charged to manage and control Coastal Reserve of the Casuarina. In this coastal area, the Dripstone Cliffs and the beach can be seen where Romeo fell over the edge of the cliff onto the beach and suffered with serious injuries (Kluwer, 2022). Further, it was also a true fact that Romeo drank near some cliffs and wandered off that raised chances of an accident.

On the other side, the fencing or signage was not there that could have protected her from falling over the edge of the cliff onto the beach. Because of this, there was more probability to fall over the edge of the cliff. However, it was record that there had never been a problem before in 100 years. In the case of making a safe place and minimizing the risk apart from fencing, the respondent had more burdens to do so (Manderson, 2006). The claim of damages against Conservation Commission was considered to accept by the court based on findings made by the trial judge because of the issues of law that arise.

However, a dismissal of the appeal can also be possible based on the material facts in which Romeo was affected by alcohol. The consumption of alcohol of Romeo and her friend during the evening prior to the accident can be seen as adversely affected by alcohol and a direct evidence as to the circumstances of their fall. At this stage, the appellant’s claim should be dismissed based on the material facts. There are many questions about this claim of damages that should be considered by the court or not. In the thinking of Romeo, the commission was in breach of its duty of care (Manderson, 2006). The commission should have provided a sign of warning or written warning on board at that place to aware people as dangerous to stand here.

There were also some reasons to deny the claim of Romeo because she had knowledge of the existence and nature of the cliff edge. Her knowledge and awareness about the danger of walking on the cliff top made an evidence to neglect the claim of damages (Jade, 2020). In other reasons of denying her claim can be determined as she proceeded beyond the car park fence on to the cliff top. A log fence closer to the cliff edge was enough to aware people to avoid going on to the cliff top. With all these information, it is enough for a person to understand the area as dangerous to go there (Kluwer, 2022). These reasons were enough to Angel J in order to dismiss claim of the appellant. According to Angel J, there were legal principles around the accident area where commission was followed and that govern the existence and standard of their duty of care.

The statement of Angel J based on duty of care of the Commission’s obligation and common right to entre at public places cannot be ignored because there is a given scope of the duty for commission to control a land with care of his safety and nature of premises. At this stage, the difficulties and the risk of injury were foreseeable to everyone equally and danger of the cliffs was apparent. Such information was also beneficial to everyone to do exercise of reasonable care against the risk of injury (Manderson, 2006).

In such scenario, the appeal of Romeo to the Court to the Northern Territory failed because the Martin CJ also did not find necessary evidence to prove that whether the Commission is responsible under a duty to take public safety measures. The risk of cliff was an obvious one and its danger could have been avoided through exercise in an ordinary care (Jade, 2020). The high court did not find out the breach of duty of the Commission and the issues of law that rose on the appeal were suggested to identify the source of negligence of duty of care as right.

Further, the basis of liability is not associated with the possession or occupation of land in which a foundation for a duty of care is not according to it. Generally, a duty of care depends upon the interest of the defendant in the presence of other. A duty of care of a person related to the possession or occupation can be seen as in the case of an entrant that enters on land in the lack of entrant’s title and an ability of defendant to provide safety of the entrant against dangers based on premises condition (Kluwer, 2022). Therefore, the duty of care can be considered only in the conditions of power to determine the terms and power of defendant to safeguard the entrant against dangers.

At the time of accident of Romeo, there were many evidences to challenge on her appeal in which enjoyment for a beach party with a small bottle of Bundaberg Rum can be considered one of the evidences. Romeo that was adversely affected by alcohol with her friend can also be a reason to cancel hr claimed damages (Manderson, 2006). Therefore, the proceeding in the court could be seriously challenged because Romeo has no direct evidence as to how she falls from the cliff.

In this scenario, the claim of damages of Romeo against conservation/commission was formulated based on the occupier (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory) of the Coastal Reserve because it was responsible to manage and control the all locations of the Casuarina Coastal Reserve (Jade, 2020). Therefore, the claim of Romeo against Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory must therefore fail at all and her appeal be dismissed by the court.

Conclusion

After discussion of the case of Romeo v Conservation, it can be concluded that Romeo was failed to demonstrate right evidences against Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory for her falling and suffering the horrific injuries. The basis of liability is not associated with the possession or occupation of land in which a foundation for a duty of care is not according to it. It was not mentioned in the law whether the Commission is responsible under a duty to take public safety measures. At last, a dismissal of the appeal can also be possible based on the material facts in which Romeo was affected by alcohol.

References

Jade. (2020). HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. Retrieved from: https://jade.io/article/68073

Kluwer, W. (2022). ROMEO v CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY (1998) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-457, High Court of Australia, 02 February 1998. Retrieved from: https://pinpoint.cch.com.au/document/legauUio361963sl9670591/romeo-v-conservation-commission-of-the-northern-territory

Manderson, D. (2006). Proximity, Levinas, and the Soul of Law. Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.