User:Bonanno17/sandbox

= Chapman v Hearse = Chapman v Hearse was a prominent case that reached the High Court Australia. The case is most pertinent to duty of care and reasonable foreseeability within the tort of negligence.

Facts
On the dark wet evening in September 1958, Chapman, driving whilst intoxicated, fell out of his car and was rendered unconscious. Lying on the road, Chapman was noticed by an oncoming driver, Dr Cherry, who stopped and sought to assist Chapman. While attending to the unconscious Chapman, another driver Hearse unwittingly hit and killed Dr Cherry.

The executor of Dr Cherry's estate sought damages against Hearse under the Wrongs Act 1936. During the case, Hearse stated that, if he was found liable, he should also receive compensation from Chapman as Dr Cherry would not have been on the road or in a position to be hit, had it not been for Chapmans’ contributory negligence. The trial judge found Hearse’s driving to be negligent and Hearse was ordered to compensate Dr Cherry’s family. The trial judge also found that Chapman was liable to make a contribution to Hearse of one quarter of the damages.

Proceeding this case between Hearse and the estate of Dr. Cherry, Chapman lodged an appeal to the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against Hearse claiming he had no duty of care to the deceased and that Hearse’s action had broken the chain of causation. Chapman’s appeal was dismissed. Chapman then appealed his case to the High Court.

Issues
Chapman v Hearse sought to answer whether or not Chapman (the Appellant) owed a duty of care to Dr Cherry, which would result in him being free of charges against Hearse (the Respondent). Essentially, can Hearse recover contribution from Chapman?

To answer this question, the court needed to look at whether Chapman would have been liable in the same suit Hearse faced against the executor of Dr.Cherry’s estate. This requires considering whether Chapman owed Dr. Cherry a Duty of Care, Remoteness and Reasonable foreseeability.

Reasonable foreseeability
The judgement took place on the 8th of August 1961, decided by judges Dixon CJ, Kitto J, Taylor J and Windeyer JJ. Chapman argued that he owed no duty of care as Dr Cherry’s death was a sole result of Hearse’s negligent driving; he emphasised that Dr Cherry’s death was far too remote to fix Chapman with responsibility and by extension liability for compensation to Hearse or Cherry.

Dr Cherry was standing towards the centre of the road when he was struck down by Hearse. It was wet, dark and there seemed no doubt that visibility was limited. Because of this, Chapman argued that the likelihood of someone being deposited in the middle of the road, and for the first car to visibly see him be occupied by a doctor who happened to get hit himself while assisting someone was in no way reasonably foreseeable. However, the judges decided that it was reasonably foreseeable that the events that happened after Chapmans accident were not unlikely to follow between two vehicles on a dark, wet night on a busy highway. The judges also acknowledge that what is ‘reasonable and probable’ may be and will continue to be heavily debated.

The case Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 is comparable on its commentary on reasonable foreseeability to Chapman v Hearse. The obiter dicta from Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 argued that a reasonable man, concerned for the safety of others would avoid the risk of putting others in harms way. This is relevant as it questions whether the end result of the appellants negligence, the death of Dr Cherry, was truly reasonably foreseeable and how the appellant should have considered the implications of his actions on others. The judges also affirm that while one can forever speculate about the consequences of negligent behaviour one will never know what damages should be attributed to an act until it has actually happened.