Schoolies in trouble 'could sue' "As about 30,000 teenagers begin arriving on the Gold Coast today for the week-long Schoolies celebration, a local lawyer believes the Queensland Government could be held liable for injury and sexual assault compensation claims.
Gold Coast lawyer Bruce Simmons said by taking over official control of Schoolies Week, the State Government had essentially assumed responsibility for the teenagers attending."
The Common Law:
"True it may be, that vulnerability, power, control, generality or particularity of the class, the resources of, and demands upon the authority, may each be, in a given case, a relevant circumstance, but none should, I think, of itself be decisive."[1]
"In my opinion, therefore, in a novel case where a plaintiff alleges that a statutory authority owed him or her a common law duty of care and breached that duty by failing to exercise a statutory power, the issue of duty should be determined by the following questions:
1. Was it reasonably foreseeable that an act or omission of the defendant, including a failure to exercise its statutory powers, would result in injury to the plaintiff or his or her interests? If no, then there is no duty.
2. By reason of the defendant's statutory or assumed obligations or control, did the defendant have the power to protect a specific class including the plaintiff (rather than the public at large) from a risk of harm? If no, then there is no duty.
3. Was the plaintiff or were the plaintiff's interests vulnerable in the sense that the plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to adequately safeguard himself or herself or those interests from harm? If no, then there is no duty.
4. Did the defendant know, or ought the defendant to have known, of the risk of harm to the specific class including the plaintiff if it did not exercise its powers? If no, then there is no duty.
5. Would such a duty impose liability with respect to the defendant's exercise of "core policy-making" or "quasi-legislative" functions? If yes, then there is no duty.
6. Are there any other supervening reasons in policy to deny the existence of a duty of care (e.g., the imposition of a duty is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, or the case is concerned with pure economic loss and the application of principles in that field deny the existence of a duty)? If yes, then there is no duty."[2]
[1]
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540 at 664 [321] per Callinan J.
[2]
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1 at 35 [82] per McHugh J.