(82) For instance, legal payment schemes that do not want claimants to establish fault on behalf of the new injurer was ubiquitously inspired ‘no-fault’ systems: select, such as, ‘Symposium: Tort Rules–No-fault Insurance’ (1989) twenty-six Hillcrest Law Comment 977.
(83) Select Cane, ‘Fault and you can Rigid Responsibility for Harm inside Tort Law’, over n 8, 187-9; Cane, Duty in law and you may Morality, a lot more than letter 8, 82-4.
(84) In fact, there clearly was cause to think you to within the mostly defunct common legislation species of rigorous accountability, a number of people stored strictly responsible was indeed in fact at fault, as these cases of rigorous liability generally operated where defendants got involved with abnormally unsafe facts: discover John Fleming, What the law states of Torts (9th ed, 1998) 369.
Note, however, you to definitely McHugh J after recanted their declaration pursuing the High Court’s choice from inside the Bankstown Foundry Pry Ltd v Braistina 1986) 160 CLR 301: Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver (2001) 179 ALR 321, 329-29
(86) Get a hold of, particularly, Bugge v Brown (1919) twenty six CLR 110; Canadian Pacific Rail Co v Lockhart Air-con 591 ; Phoenix Area Inc v Cavenagh (1996) 25 MVR 143.
(90) Kondis v State Transportation Expert (1986) 154 CLR 672, 687 (Mason J). Sigue leyendo