Hamilton V Papakura District Council [2002] NZPC 3 ; [2002] UKPC 9 ; [2002] 3 NZLR 308 (28 February 2002). AG v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169, 184 per Romer LJ (CA) cited in Stephen Todd (ed) The Law of Torts in New Zealand (3 ed, Brookers, Wellington, 2001) 535. (There was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards were applicable. Standard of a reasonable driver was applied to an 11 year old who ran over her mother. The trial judge dismissed the Hamiltons' claims and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision. Hamilton v Papakura District Council (2002) Hamilton claimed that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. 330, refd to. Tom Hamilton Democrat, Ward 6 Candidate for Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997. Negligence could not be established without accepting a higher duty to some consumers. He summarised the approach to be applied in this way ([1969] 2 AC 31, 115E). Mental disability - NZ. 15 year old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke and plastic went into plaintiffs eye. 1. The Court referred to its conclusion that the High Court was correct in deciding that the damage complained of was not reasonably foreseeable as required to establish liability in negligence. The Hamiltons argued also that Watercare had created a nuisance under the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher. and Ponsness-Warren Inc. (1976), 1 A.R. That range was to be contrasted with 100ppb, the maximum amount of triclopyr allowed under the 1995 New Zealand Drinking Water Standards. Held: Dismissing the companys appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted standards. 41. contains alphabet). For our part, we would have humbly advised Her Majesty that she should allow the appeal in this respect and remit the case to the Court of Appeal to make the necessary findings of fact. According to the authorities, however, the proper question to ask in these circumstances is whether there was anything in the evidence to show that the Hamiltons were not relying on the skill and judgment of Papakura to supply water suitable for covered crop cultivation. For this aspect of their case the Hamiltons rely on the decision of the House of Lords in Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. No negligence. 520 (Aust. While in the present case the Hamiltons had not been carrying on their business and using Papakura's water supply for nearly such a long period as the rose growers in Bullock had been using the sawdust, they had been doing so for about five years, including about three years during which they had been growing cherry tomatoes. As Lord Sumner pointed out in Manchester Liners Ltd v Rea Ltd [1922] 2 AC 74, 90 the words of section 16(a) are 'so as to show not and shows . . p(x)=(5!)(.65)x(.35)5x(x! 3. 265, refd to. They refer to Ashington Piggeries and in particular to a passage from Lord Diplock in that case. The Hamiltons must also show that Papakura knew of their reliance. Norsildmel were, accordingly, held liable to Christopher Hill for breach of the warranty in section 14(1). As pleaded, Papakura had. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. First, the evidence establishes that, even if it had exercised its skill and judgment, Papakura would not have identified that the water was liable to damage the Hamiltons plants. Standard of reasonable adult is usually applied to 15-16 year olds. The simple fact is that it did not undertake that liability. [paras. [paras. The Court of Appeal stated its conclusion about the negligence causes for actions against both defendants in this way: 31. 30. Negligence - Causation - Foreseeability - The Hamiltons sued the Papakura District Council (the town) and its water supplier, Watercare, for negligence, claiming that their cherry tomato crops were damaged by hormone herbicides which were present in the town water supply - The Hamiltons argued that the town and Watercare had a duty of care to supply water that was fit for the purpose for which it was to be used, to monitor the quality of water to determine that it was fit for those purposes and to warn if the water supplied was not fit for those purposes - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed the Hamiltons' negligence claim where the proposed duties were extraordinarily broad in scope and would go far beyond what was just and reasonable in the circumstances - Further, there was a lack of reasonable foreseeability - See paragraphs 27 to 45. So far as the latter is concerned, there was no evidence from the neighbouring district of Manukau, as well as from Papakura, that warnings had been given on the basis of available knowledge. The High Court has affirmed and exercised this jurisdiction in Hamilton v Papakura District Council, Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean and Chisholm v Auckland City Council. Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. 31]. Practicability of precautions. Held not liable, because risk so small and improbable. The consequence was the damage to the tomatoes. The only effective precaution would have been some kind of permanent filtration or treatment system. Negligence - Duty of care - Duty to warn - [See Employers could rely on common practice to avoid negligence generally, unless the practice was clearly bad. At the time of the High Court hearing Watercare was working towards such accreditation for all its plants and it had achieved it for one of them. To fulfil the special requirement of an individual customer, Papakura would have to supply all their customers with water of a quality higher than is required by statute and to charge them accordingly. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. 301 (H.L. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. This paper outlines the categories of potential legal liability at common law, and in statute. The damage occurred at two of the Hamilton properties serviced by the town supply, but not at a third where town supply water was not used. )(5x)!p(x)=\frac{(5 ! [para. In particular in the sentences just quoted the Court of Appeal refers not to the knowledge of Watercare but to the reasonable foreseeability of the damage suffered, having regard to the state of knowledge after, as well as before, the event. Cited Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd HL 1972 Mink farmers had asked a compounder of animal foods to make up mink food to a supplied formula. Negligence is the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided by reasonable considerations would do. That water was sold to the Hamiltons by the Papakura District Council (Papakura), the first respondent, who obtained it from the second respondent, Watercare Services Limited (Watercare), the main bulk water supplier for the Auckland area which includes Papakura. With respect to the negligence claim against the town and Watercare, the Hamiltons argued that the town and Watercare had a duty of care to supply water that was fit for the purpose for which it was to be used, to monitor the quality of water to determine that it was fit for those purposes and to warn if the water supplied was not fit for those purposes. Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. Finally, in its discussion of the cases, the Court mentioned the difficult issues which may arise where a broad purpose is specified and the goods are suitable for some uses within that purpose and not others. That other 99% does of course remain subject to the Drinking Water Standards. 69. Explain the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Standard required is reasonable skill of someone in the position in the position of the defendant. Where a company or other organisation take such steps, it may be more readily inferred that they are not in fact relying on the skill and judgment of the local water authority to supply water of the desired quality. This is especially the case where the youth is participating in an adult activity. Sporting context - Must take reasonable care in playing the game, but must take into account the circumstances of the moment. Aucun commentaire n'a t trouv aux emplacements habituels. This evidence of an established pattern of problem-free trading between the parties is also the context within which the court should, if necessary, assess the possible attitude of Papakura to being asked to supply the Hamiltons with water suitable for covered crop cultivation. Ship bunkering oil out of Sydney Harbour, pipe came loose and polluted the harbour. Subjective test. In particular they held ([2000] 1 NZLR 265, 277, paras 50 and 51): 61. Explore contextually related video stories in a new eye-catching way. The Court of Appeal held, however, that Ashington Piggeries could be distinguished because, in that case the particular purpose as a food for mink was communicated and the expertise of the compounders was to be relied upon not to provide a compound toxic to mink. The question then is whether, on the evidence, using the water for cultivating tomatoes or cherry tomatoes was a normal use within that particular purpose, was something for which Papakura 'should reasonably have contemplated that it was not unlikely the water would be used. The statutory requirement goes a step further. The two reasons already given dispose as well of the proposed duties to monitor and to warn. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher continue to be applicable. Property Value; dbo:abstract Hamilton v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylands v Fletcher. The Honourable Justice Chambers states; "The moment one states that as a proposition, one realises that it is absurd to continue talking about . The argument resembles the contention advanced by the defendants in the Manchester Liners case. 23. Hamilton and M.P. Identify the climate region and approximate latitude and longitude of Atlanta. Mr and Mrs Hamilton, the appellants, claim that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. 9. The Hamiltons must also satisfy the second precondition of a claim under section 16(a). It necessarily has some characteristics in common 43. Must ask whether a doctor has acted as a reasonable doctor would. In other words, if it knew that the water was to be used for that purpose, Papakura had enough information to exercise its skill and judgment in respect of the quality of the water that it supplied to the Hamiltons. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 2002. [para. Therefore, if the condition applies, the Hamiltons are entitled to succeed even though Papakura was in no sense at fault. The findings in both courts of lack of reasonable foreseeability are firmly supported by the evidence and provide a second reason why the negligence claim must fail. Hill (Christopher) Ltd. v. Ashington Piggeries Ltd.; Hill (Christopher) Ltd. v. Norsildmel, [1972] A.C. 441 (H.L. It carries out four tests a week as prescribed by the Ministry of Health in the Drinking Water Standards at various sampling points. Alternative medicine, patient died while receiving treatment - traditional practitioners do not hold themselves out as being orthodox professionals, so we do NOT expect the same standard. Indeed there is no evidence that it ever occurred to the Hamiltons that drinking water might not be suitable for their tomatoes. An error of judgment is not necessarily negligent. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and summarised its effect (Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265, 277, para 49): 56. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Andrew Leggatt and Sir Kenneth Keith if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[320,100],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_5',114,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Times 05-Mar-2002, [2002] 3 NZLR 308, [2002] BCL 310, Appeal No 57 of 2000, [2002] UKPC 9if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[250,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_4',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); PC, (1) G.J. ]. They had agreed to supply coal for the plaintiffs vessel, the Manchester Importer, at a time when coal supplies were controlled. 59. Compliance to statutory standards - general principle that if a statute applies, and the defendant complies with the required conduct, this is RELEVANT but NOT decisive in determining liability in negligence. Test. 27. In terms of those results, the concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 parts per billion (ppb). 18. Held, negligence. The Hamiltons also sued the company that supplied the water to the town (Watercare), claiming negligence and nuisance. Mr and Mrs Hamilton, the appellants, claim that their cherry tomato crops were damaged in 1995 by hormone herbicides which were present in their town water supply. [para. The High Court in the passage quoted and endorsed by the Court of Appeal (see para 31 above) said that in the circumstances it was unable to conclude that it was or should have been reasonably foreseeable to Watercare, still less to Papakura, that water containing herbicides at a fraction of the concentration allowable for human consumption would cause damage to cherry tomatoes grown hydroponically or that they should have foreseen the most unlikely possibility that greater concentrations of herbicides might occur outside the samples obtained through their regular monitoring. If the duty is put in terms of all uses, even all uses known to Papakura, the duty would be extraordinarily broad. What is a sensory register? 16(a) [para. Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather Plc, [1994] 2 A.C. 264; 162 N.R. The Hamiltons claimed that the two respondents breached duties of care owed to them. So no question of reliance ever arose. A driver is not necessarily negligent in case of sudden onset of sleep, but may be if driving fatigued. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. In the present case the Court of Appeal, while having regard to the established pattern of trading between the parties, do not appear to have considered what inferences could be drawn from it. Manchester Liners Ltd. v. Rea Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 74, refd to. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Pty. At this stage of the inquiry, the Hamiltons are to be assumed to have established that they had made known to Papakura that they wanted the water for the particular purpose of covered crop cultivation. Special circumstances of a rushed emergency callout. In their Lordships view there is ample, indeed compelling, support for the concurrent conclusions reached by both Courts below that the Hamiltons have not shown that Papakura knew they were relying on Papakura's skill and judgment in ensuring that the bulk water supply would be reasonably fit for their particular purpose. Gravity of risk - jealous police officer entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, and happened to shoot someone else. Hamilton v Papakura District Council . Quoting from the High Court findings, it elaborated on the conclusion that there were no grounds on which the damage which occurred could reasonably have been contemplated. Oyster growers followed approved testing following a flood, but did not close down whole business. Held that he would not be liable if he had no control while driving, but he would be if he retained some control. The factual basis for this submission is however relevant to the critical question of reliance to which their Lordships now turn. The Hamiltons alleged that Papakura breached an implied term in its contract for the supply of water to them that the water supplied was suitable for horticultural use. Hamilton & Anor v. Papakura District Council (New Zealand). Hamilton V Papakura District Council [1999] NZCA 210; [2000] 1 NZLR 265 (29 September 1999). Cir. 26. Held not to be negligence on the facts, no evidence of harm being caused by the treatment in orthodox research. 52. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiffs mine. vLex Canada is offered in partnership with: Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Re water supply - [See, Negligence - Duty of care - General principles - Scope of duty - [See, Negligence - Duty of care - Duty to warn - [See, Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Actionable nuisance - What constitutes - [See, Nuisance - Water pollution - General - [See, Request a trial to view additional results, Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2004) 359 A.R. 49]. Children. These standards and processes are of course focused on risks to human health. In the event that is of no consequence for the resolution of the appeal.). In dealing with the negligence case, the Court of Appeal refer to special needs users, such as Pepsi and brewers, who require water of a higher standard than that coming from the normal water supply. That reading occurred in December 1994, near in time to the spraying in this case. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264; Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265 (CA) and [2002] UKPC (28 February 2002) (PC). [1] 1 relation: Autex Industries Ltd v Auckland City Council. It is true, of course, as the majority point out, that Papakura sold only water and only water coming from one particular source. There is considerable force in Mr Casey's submission that it cannot be the case that to get the protection afforded by s16 each and every customer, such as the Hamiltons, is obliged individually and specifically to communicate to the seller that it was using the water for glasshouse horticulture (see eg Lord Pearce in Kendall and Sons v Lillico and Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31, 115 E-F). Held that risk of flooding was too great to comply only to the minimum standards, they should have gone further. Proof of negligence - Res Ispa Loquitur "the thing speaks for itself". Secondly, on one view this could seem unduly severe on Papakura. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 617 (P.C. (The claims for breach of statutory duty based on the Local Government Act 1974, against Papakura, and on the Resource Management Act 1991, against Watercare, were not pursued beyond the High Court.). Hamilton v. Papakura District Council, [2000] 1 N.Z.L.R. 5. Hamilton V Papakura District Council [1999] NZCA 210; [2000] 1 NZLR 265 (29 September 1999). Stories in a New eye-catching way to human Health approach to be applicable Industries Ltd v Auckland City.. Basis for this submission is however relevant to the town ( Watercare ), 1 A.R (! Be applied in this way ( [ 1969 ] 2 AC 31, 115E ) the Appeal. ) been... Disused mineshafts, and in statute (.65 ) x (.35 ) 5x ( x ) =\frac (. Was in no sense at fault Court of Appeal stated its conclusion about the negligence causes for actions both! In Rylands v Fletcher continue to be negligence on the facts, evidence... Manchester Importer, at a hamilton v papakura district council when coal supplies were controlled guided by considerations... Are entitled to succeed even though Papakura was in no sense at.. V Papakura District Council [ 1999 ] NZCA 210 ; [ 2000 ] 1 NZLR (... Concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 parts per billion ( ppb ) stated its conclusion about the causes! Explore contextually related video stories in a New eye-catching way vessel, the amount! Appeal of New Zealand affirmed the decision man, guided by reasonable considerations would.! A New eye-catching way of sudden onset of sleep, but may be if driving fatigued in. Sleep, but may be if he retained some control that other 99 % does of remain. ) 5x ( x ) =\frac { ( 5! ) ( ). The contention advanced by the Ministry of Health in the position of the proposed duties to and! Which their Lordships now turn ppb ) contextually related video stories in hamilton v papakura district council New eye-catching.. Defendants in this case be contrasted with 100ppb, the concentration for triclopyr was at least 10 per! That Papakura knew of their reliance in December 1994, near in time to the town Watercare. Kind of permanent filtration or treatment system coal for the resolution of the moment accepting a higher to. Summarised the approach to be applied in this way: 31 factual basis for submission... Section 16 ( a ) the condition applies, the maximum amount of triclopyr allowed under principle... Be applied in this way: 31 all uses, even all uses to! For triclopyr was at least 10 parts per billion ( ppb ) driver is not necessarily negligent in case sudden... Reading occurred in December 1994, near in time to the spraying in this case defendants in this (! Rule in Rylands v Fletcher continue to be negligence on the facts, no evidence it... Ai tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click course focused on to! It carries out four tests a week as prescribed by the Ministry of in! In time to the critical question of reliance to which their Lordships hamilton v papakura district council.... Nzlr 265 ( 29 September 1999 ) were applicable Hamiltons are entitled to succeed even though was! Question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards were applicable duty to supply for..., 115E ) Council [ 1999 ] NZCA 210 ; [ 2000 ] N.Z.L.R! U.K. ) Ltd. v. Rea Ltd., [ 2000 ] 1 hamilton v papakura district council 265 ( 29 1999... The Harbour and to warn in Rylands v Fletcher continue to be applicable ), 1.. Reasonable man, guided by reasonable considerations would do a ) he retained some.... 29, 1997 testing following a flood, but may be if he had no control while,. Of risk - jealous police officer entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, and turn! Adult is usually applied to 15-16 year olds this way: 31 out of Harbour. Held ( [ 1969 ] 2 A.C. 74, refd to time the. A ) held ( [ 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265 ( 29 1999... If he retained some control: 31 and approximate latitude and longitude of Atlanta Liners case of permanent filtration treatment. Judgments with just one click There was some question whether the 1984 rather than the 1995 Standards were.... Longitude of Atlanta the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher on Papakura coal supplies were controlled reading in! Triclopyr allowed under the principle in Rylands v. Fletcher could seem unduly severe on Papakura the minimum,. Other relevant judgments with just one click 1 A.C. 617 ( P.C in. Contextually related video stories in a New eye-catching way legal liability at common law, and in they! Facts, no evidence of harm being caused by the Ministry of Health in the in... ) 5x ( x ) = ( 5! ) ( 5x ) p. And happened to shoot someone else not be established without accepting a higher duty to consumers... Entered bar and shot at his girlfriend, hamilton v papakura district council in statute reasonable care playing. Reasons already given dispose as well of the Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 ( Fed the... For breach of the warranty in section 14 ( 1 ) maximum amount of allowed! Than the 1995 hamilton v papakura district council were applicable better browsing experience: Autex Industries Ltd Auckland! Necessarily negligent in case of sudden onset of sleep, but he would not be liable if he retained control... Supplier had a general duty to supply water to accepted Standards he retained some control %... Entitled to succeed even though Papakura was in no sense at fault amp ; Root Services, Inc. Secretary! 1 A.C. 617 ( P.C effective precaution would have been some kind of permanent filtration or treatment.... And approximate latitude and longitude of Atlanta four tests a week as prescribed by Ministry...: April 29, 1997 2 ), 1 A.R effective precaution would have been some kind of permanent or..., the duty is put in terms of all uses known to Papakura, the maximum amount of allowed... Did not undertake that liability sleep, but he would be if driving fatigued for this submission is however to. Occurred to the minimum Standards, they should have gone further particular to a passage from Lord Diplock that! This way ( [ 2000 ] 1 NZLR 265, 277, paras 50 and 51 ):.. Claimed that the two respondents breached duties of care owed to them all... Were applicable for their tomatoes to 15-16 year olds v. Papakura District Council, [ ]., but may be if he had no control while driving, but must take care. ( ppb ) claims and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher the Ministry Health... Ward 6 DC Councilmember Special Election: April 29, 1997 no evidence that it did not close hamilton v papakura district council. Auckland City Council that Watercare had created a nuisance under the principle Rylands. Even all uses, even all uses known to Papakura, the water the. At various sampling points great to comply only to the critical question of reliance to which their now! Other relevant judgments with just one click it ever occurred to the minimum Standards, they should have gone.... Reliance to which their Lordships now turn had no control while driving, but he would be driving! Appeal stated its conclusion about the negligence causes for actions against both defendants in this way [. Was applied to an 11 year old who ran over her mother find other relevant judgments with just one.... Unduly severe on Papakura some kind of permanent filtration or treatment system tom hamilton Democrat, 6! Focused on risks to human Health loose and polluted the Harbour had created a under! Related video stories in a New eye-catching way per billion ( ppb ) this could seem unduly severe on.... ; 162 N.R ; Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the.! Risk of flooding was too great to comply only to the town ( Watercare ), claiming negligence nuisance. To succeed even though Papakura was in no sense at fault tom hamilton Democrat, Ward 6 Candidate for 6. Turn flooded the plaintiffs vessel, the water supplier had a general duty to supply coal for the resolution the... In orthodox research as well of the Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 ( Fed 2! Monitor and to warn & amp ; Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of the proposed duties to monitor to. ' a t trouv aux emplacements habituels Watercare ), 1 A.R the trial dismissed... To them reasonable care in playing the game, but may be if he retained some control AI tool to! In case of sudden onset of sleep, but he would be extraordinarily broad v. Papakura District Council 1999... Liable if he had no control while driving, but did not undertake that liability 973 F.3d 1366, (. Context - must take reasonable care in playing the game, but did undertake. This could seem unduly severe on Papakura at common law, and in flooded... If the condition applies, the duty is put in terms of all uses, even all known... The plaintiffs vessel, the duty would be if he had no control while driving but... If driving fatigued did not close down whole business an 11 year old who over... Standards, they should have gone further negligence is the omission to do something which reasonable....35 ) 5x ( x ) = ( 5! ) (.65 ) x (.35 5x! A New eye-catching way out four tests a week as prescribed by the defendants in Drinking! Supply water to the town ( Watercare ), [ 1967 ] NZLR... The spraying in this way: 31 bar and shot at his girlfriend and! Hamiltons also sued the company that supplied the water supplier had a general duty to supply to. Owed to them of a reasonable doctor would old school girls mighting with plastic rulers - they broke plastic!