|
Sometimes, in circumstances where we might ordinarily conclude that harm to a particular class of persons is reasonably foreseeable and that a duty of care ought to exist, we find that the courts reach a different conclusion. This is because, in some situations, policy considerations intervene and prevent a legal duty of care from arising. Generally this occurs in situations where the courts do not wish to adjudicate on what standard of care is appropriate.
For example, in Australian law, parents owe no duty of care to their children for harm arising from a failure to act. Another example is that a person who is committing a crime generally owes no duty of care to a person who is also involved in committing that crime. The High Court has also recently reaffirmed the immunity which a barrister has in respect of work done in court, or that is closely connected to work done in court.
In most states, specific immunities have been introduced by statute. Below are some examples. The legislation is not uniform, so click on the relevant links below to see where the provisions apply.
Volunteers and food donors: People who provide voluntary services in relation to community work or donors of food for benevolent or charitable purposes. Click here to see a list of the relevant Acts.
Good Samaritans: People who cause injury to others while acting as 'good Samaritans' (that is, by providing assistance or advice, for which they expect no financial reward, in an emergency or at the scene of an accident) are made immune from any claim that their intervention made the plaintiff's position worse. Click here to see a list of the relevant Acts.
|