March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (E & MH) Pty Ltd (commonly known as March v Stramare)[1] was a High Court of Australia case decided in 1991 on Australian tort law. The case considered the conditions required for causation to be established in tort law, the limitations of the "but for" test and the significance of an intervening act by a third party in determining causation. In this case, the High Court held that, although it was useful in clarifying the facts of the case, the but-for test was not the exclusive test in determining causation as it posed difficulties in attributing responsibility for damages in two key types of cases. The first was in cases when attributing responsibility in cases where the damage was caused by the negligence of more than one party, and the second was in cases where the damage resulted from an intervening act. Instead, the court favoured a case-by-case basis approach in attributing legal responsibility for causation, which took both common sense principles and public policy concerns into consideration when coming to a decision.
March v Stramare (E & MH) | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | March v Stramare (E & MH) |
Decided | 24 April 1991 |
Citation(s) | [1991] HCA 12, (1991) 171 CLR 506. |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | March v E & MM Stramare Pty Ltd, 50 SARS 506 (SASC 1989). |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Chief Justice Mason, Justice Deane, Justice McHugh, Justice Toohey & Justice Gaudron |
The court also reaffirmed that an intervening act by a third party would be sufficient to break the chain of causation and shift the legal responsibility of the damages onto the third party. However, it was held that if the action had occurred due to the negligence or wrongdoing of the original defendant, it would not be considered an intervening act and would be insufficient to break the chain of causation.[1]
With this ruling, the High Court reversed the decision of the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in March v E & MM Stramare Pty Ltd (1989). Instead the court upheld the first instance decision of the trial judge, stating that both parties were responsible for the incident.[2]