Time to abolish the rule in Searle v Wallbank for negligence and nuisance claims

Gray, Anthony ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9565-475X (2008) Time to abolish the rule in Searle v Wallbank for negligence and nuisance claims. Deakin Law Review, 13 (2). pp. 101-130. ISSN 1321-3660

Preview

PDF (Published Version) Gray_Deakin_Law_Review_v13n2_VoR.pdf Download (499kB)

Abstract

This paper concerns the rule created in the 1947 case of Searle v Wallbank, that the owner of an animal not known to be dangerous that allows it to escape and cause injury to those travelling nearby does not owe a duty of care to such travellers, and cannot be held liable in nuisance. The rule has been partly abrogated by statute in some Australian jurisdictions, and I argue that it should no longer be applied as part of the common law of tort in Australia. This is because it leads to arbitrary results, does not fit well with trends and developments in Australian tort law, and because the reasoning on which it is based, if ever applicable in Australia, is no longer applicable today.

Statistics for this ePrint Item

Item Type:	Article (Commonwealth Reporting Category C)
Refereed:	Yes
Item Status:	Live Archive
Additional Information:	Version of Record deposited with blanket permission of the Editor.
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre:	Historic - Faculty of Business - School of Law (1 Apr 2007 - 31 Dec 2010)
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre:	Historic - Faculty of Business - School of Law (1 Apr 2007 - 31 Dec 2010)
Date Deposited:	15 May 2009 00:04
Last Modified:	07 Jul 2014 05:02
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Searle v Wallbank; highway liability; liability for animals; Trigwell
Fields of Research (2008):	18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180126 Tort Law
Fields of Research (2020):	48 LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES > 4806 Private law and civil obligations > 480605 Tort law
URI:	http://eprints.usq.edu.au/id/eprint/4777

Actions (login required)

Archive Repository Staff Only