Romeo V Conservation Commission Of The Northern Territory

The case structure of Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory has played a pivotal role in re-engaging the Australian High Court in the issue of assessing the most trending question relating to the common liability of public authorities. This area is that law segment that has been illustrated as unsettled, unresolved, impractical, inefficient and ineffective in nature. Furthermore, this case has appeared to be a decision wherein a primary reliance was asserted on the statutory authorities so that liability in negligence can be mitigated. Moreover, in this case, it was never stated that the respondent authority owed a duty of care to the respective appellant (Romeo v conservation commission of the northern territory, 1998). Nevertheless, the context, nature and origin of the aforesaid liability and the application of statutory authorities were the prima facie issues getting dealt distinctively in six different court judgements.

Case background

In the given scenario, the plaintiff was seen drinking and socializing around various cliffs being managed by the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff had injured herself due to this process as and when she walked off the said cliff. As a result, a case was filed by the plaintiff alleging that this was a failure or negligence on the part of the defendant because this injury could have been prevented if a fence would have been built on the cliffs.

Issue

In the said case, the High Court of Australia was re-engaged in the problematic issue of liability that was prevailing under the common law. In other words, the primary issue in the said case is whether not building a fence or barrier along the cliff was the responsibility of the authority. Alternatively, it has also been debated whether it is the moral obligation of the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory for establishing a warning indication near the park so that the common people can be warned about the dangers related to the cliff (Romeo v conservation commission of the northern territory, 1998). Overall, the issues in the said case are associated with the calculus of negligence, duty breach, and obvious risk on a whole.

Statutory powers and functions of the Commission

As stated in section 19 of the Conservation Commission Act, 1980, the Commission has been entrusted with various powers and functions. Firstly, it has been entrusted to build and manage various sanctuaries, reserves, and parks. Secondly, it primarily functions to promote the protection and conservation of the natural environment of the territories.

With respect to powers of the Commission, section 20 of the Conservation Commission Act, 1980 states that the Commission has the authority to undertake all things crucial or relevant to be done in connection with or incidental to the exercise of its powers and undertaking of its functions. The Commission also has the power to manage, utilize, occupy, and take control of any building or land that is leased or owned by the territory and is made accessible to it.

In the case of Schiller v Mulgrave Shire Council, the power of the Commission to control and manage land is almost similar to that of the power of the defendant council because in the said case, the plaintiff while walking along a track was injured when a tree fell upon him. Since, the track was more of a tourist spot, it was found that the Council should have known the danger of dead trees prevailing in the track and must have taken due precautions so that the incident could have been prevented. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the Council and succeeded in recovering damages for its negligence.

Basis of liability

Neither occupation nor possession of land is a statute for duty of care entrusted to any other person who enters the land. In simple words, the extent and prevalence of such duty of care relies upon the title of others to be present, the defendant’s interest in other’s prevalence, and the intention of the other person who enters the land. Nevertheless, occupation and possession are relevant to the prevalence of duty of care in two aspects. First, because occupation and possession give an ability to the defendant to protect the entrant against any danger in the premises and second is the terms on which such entrant enters the land will ascertain his title to be there. In the case of Aiken v Kingborough Corporation, the plaintiff was badly injured after falling into a gap betwixt the wharf decking and the bollard that was under the control and management of the defendant. The plaintiff succeeded in recovering damages in the said case.

Therefore, in accordance with the general definition of duty of care for an individual’s safety that flows from the position in association with the work or structure in which it has emphasized the public authority. Hence, measurement of duty shall be regarded as the principal matter and much importance must be asserted on the interpretation process except in the rare cases of actual prima facie intention on the face of the statute (March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd, 1991).

Breach of duty

Whether there exists a breach of duty of care relies on the action that an individual in the respondent’s scenario would have undertaken to safeguard against the anticipated injury risk that prevailed (March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd, 1991). Therefore, it must be noted that the respondent had accounted for the possibility that one or more persons to whom such duty is owed might not success to take relevant care for their safety. However, this does not imply that the respondent was obligated to ensure that people coming to the reserve would not succumb to injuries by ignoring obvious dangers.

Rejection of claim

The appellant’s revised statement of claim signified the statutory obligation of the Commission pursuant to which it had modified the reserve through road installations, access facilities, etc. In the said case, the appellant pleaded dependence upon the Commission that owed her a duty of care. However, the Commission had not agreed to the same but instead, admitted the improvements. The Commission stated that the area having the cliffs had obvious features that occurred naturally and the appellant was well aware of the same and still took the risk. The Commission also stated that the appellant was driven by alcohol consumption that resulted into her negligence and injury on a whole.

Common ground

Even though there were various arguments about the evidence prevailing in the said case, still most of the factual issues had disappeared with due course of time, the case reached the court. In other words, there were no challenges to the findings that the appellant was driven by the consumption of alcohol or she was well aware of the danger and risks associated with the cliffs. Besides, she was also not aware of the obvious dangers that could have been avoided with the usage of extra prudence. The appellant did not challenge the climax that a signal or sign would not have prevented her from walking on the cliff. Further, she also did not contest the saying that a log fence would be very inefficient in this case.

Conclusion

The requirement of predictability and stability in this segment of law is no less than the others. In simple words, people have ordered their activities based on the applied principles to their respective situations. Therefore, people have started litigation, have settled the litigations, have entered for commercial arrangements and insurance and vice-versa. Hence, strong reasons must be proved or highlighted to the court so that it can alter the basis on which the people have either acted or opted not to act. Furthermore, the suggestion that the public authorities’ liability has been taken very far that in reality, does not demand close assessment.

References

Romeo v conservation commission of the northern territory (1998) Aust Torts Reports 81-457, High Court of Australia, 02 February 1998

March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) Aust Torts Reports 81–095; (Mason C.J., Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ

March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd (1991) Aust Torts Reports 81-095; (1991) https://jade.io/article/67612