(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)Over a year ago I posted about a man who sued Coke after being shot while refilling a vending machine. As a fresh-faced first-year law student studying torts at the time, I was convinced there was no way Coke would lose and argued at length about it. The trial judgment outcome was reported in the news yesterday. The claimant, Mr Pareezer, was awarded $2.8 million by Justice Hulme. Coke’s going to appeal, of course. Trial judgment is here, will read it soon.
Update: The judgment has over a hundred paragraphs of facts, which shows that’s there’s a lot going on that newspapers don’t and can’t report. The relevant findings on breach of duty were (emphasis is added):
[173] I turn then to paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim. I agree that the Defendant did owe the Plaintiff a duty “not to expose him to an unreasonable risk of injury” provided there is added the qualification “of which the Defendant was (or perhaps ought to have been) aware” an expression similar to that in the paragraph (f) of the Plaintiff’s particulars of negligence. To take an example some distance removed from the facts here, had the Defendant received apparently reliable information that Mr Manna was, on 17 February 1997, lying in wait for the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was engaged on his duties under the contract with the Defendant, it might fairly be said that the Defendant’s duty encompassed not exposing the Plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury and to have been breached not only by instructing him to service the relevant machine but also by not seeking to stop him doing so. The former situation would, of course, be encompassed by a duty which rather was not to impose on the Plaintiff an unreasonable risk of injury. However, it would seem to me that there would also exist a duty in the latter situation notwithstanding the usual rule that one person has no obligation to protect another from actions of third parties.
[174] The factors to which I have referred in concluding that there was some duty owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff argue for the duty being at least as great as that which I have enunciated.
[175] I am also of the view that the duty so expressed was breached in circumstances constituting negligence on the part of the Defendant. Mr Ings memo of 10 August 1995 and that of Mr Orr of 21 November 1996 demonstrate knowledge on the part of the Defendant of the existence of a gang in the Penrith area (and which included the Werrington TAFE) operating during that period and at least up to 30 October 1996 and apparently prepared to resort to violence. While it must be accepted that the nature of the Plaintiff’s activities necessarily exposed him to some risks of robbery and violence, the further matters referred to in the memos to which I have referred take the risks to which he was subject out of the normal into what I would characterise as “unreasonable”. A fortiori is this so when regard is had, as I think one may, to the representations Mr Ings made to the Plaintiff.
[176] I do not ignore the fact that during the period the number of both attacks and incidents was but a very small proportion by comparison with the number of times vending machines in the Penrith area must have been attended to. However, that is not determinative of the matter and its significance pales once one recognises, as it seems to me one must, that the risks to persons servicing machines in the Penrith area are appreciably greater than what one might regard as the normal background of risk necessarily inherent in the activity of attending to the machines. Once there is a significant increase in risk over that normal background, it is appropriate to characterise the risk as unreasonable, certainly in the case of anyone who has been led to believe it does not exist.
This is saying pretty strongly, “stay away from Penrith”.
I’m finally on holidays so I went sea kayaking this morning with the newly-engaged Nick (congrats mate!) around The Spit, that was really enjoyable. Ducked into the city for a moot team meeting, then headed off to a bar for a few drinks.
End of the year is just around the corner, it has a very different feel for me this year. For one, I’m in Sydney, which hasn’t happened for five years. And secondly, I’m not spending it with family. Any family I have in Australia has unceremoniously ditched me and buggered off overseas to celebrate my grandmother’s 80th birthday in Singapore. Pffft. And to rub it in, I get a daily “vacation update” SMS from Dad which has included:
– “At the pyramids now awesome”
– “On train to Cairo How is everything Got hundreds of photos”
– “Going to Abu Simbel now its 3am now”
– “Got to go in a convoy takes 3 hours to get there by bus”
– “hi have u been receiving my msg on the nile going to Edfu everything is fine mum having great time”
– “Do you want a Galabiya a egyptian dress” [what the?]
He clearly hasn’t worked out how to put punctuation in his text messages, but hey, can’t ask too much can we?
Hmm, I just realised how ironic the term “vacation work” is.
Time for a post on this neglected website.
Work
Overall it’s going well. Not every bit of work I’ve received is exciting, but since it’s all so completely new to me, it’s still quite interesting and it’s been one big learning experience so far. When there haven’t been any evening functions (the minority of days), work finishes anywhere from 6.00pm to 7.30pm. The good thing is that it isn’t a struggle to make it to that time – when I’m kept occupied with varied tasks, time passes fairly smoothly.
In terms of environment, it’s very different to anywhere else I’ve worked. Most law firms still haven’t switched to open-plan and the result is that it’s a very quiet working environment most of the time. Some clerks have complained about feeling isolated, but the flipside is that it allows you to really focus on work without too many distractions, except when the view from my office dramatically changes when those late afternoon storms roll in.
It’s been good catching up with friends in the city during lunch. I bumped into one today I haven’t seen for over a year. He was a BIT who did a finance masters afterward and is now working in an investment bank doing M&A work. Always interesting to see what people have done with their careers.
We had the firm Christmas party last Friday at Luna Park. I’ve never been there before. They gave us a free ride pass and I went on a few of the rides, although it’s a bit weird riding a roller coaster in a suit. Great views and location, but it’s a pretty small amusement park, and I’d be disappointed if I had to pay for it. During dinner, they held something akin to Australian Idol, with several staff members getting up on stage to sing in front of the thousand or so people there. They even got Dicko on to judge. There was also a “mystery guest performer” who turned out to be Flynn. As some girls discovered later in the night on the dance floor, Flynn is apparently as seedy as he looks.
“You see me on TV, yes?”
Space Moot
The other bit of work which has replaced my holidays is drafting the 24,000 words required for our moot memorials. Fi got back from her Linklaters clerkship last week (where she was working longer hours than me!) and we finally have started putting pen to paper. We’re meant to have our first draft complete by the time I leave for China, which means the 10-day Christmas/New Year break I have is broken.
On the idiot box
Went to a Lord of the Rings marathon at Shan’s. The three extended edition DVDs, back to back – 11am start, 12.30am finish. Also been wading through Stargate DVD box sets from season 1 onwards. It’s pretty good sci-fi.
Hmm, I also won this double Hoyts movie pass after entering into a contest on the back of a packet of M&Ms… so these competitions are legitimate after all!
| 143 days spent in current location | |
| Previously | Copenhagen, Denmark |
| » Currently | San Francisco, CA (31/12/25 3:51pm) |
| View full itinerary... | |
12:21am (GMT +11.00) tomorrow 