Not naked in Tel Aviv

On 31 August 2015 a traveller booked an air ticket from Freetown to Tel Aviv. The airline mis-tagged his luggage which was lost en route. He bought replacement clothing in Tel Aviv during his stay from 9 to 21 September 2015.

The traveller sued for general and special damages in the High Court of Sierra Leone. The court found that the Warsaw Convention 1929 had been given statutory force in Sierra Leone in 1968 and so strict liability applied.

1280px-Freetown_International_Airport
By Kipp Jones – Flickr: Freetown airport, CC BY-SA 2.0,

The plaintiff claimed (inter alia) special damages in the form of the cost of replacing clothing and personal effects lost with his luggage.  He particularised his loss at $500 USD.  He was not able to produce receipts or other evidence.  The defendant argued that absence such proof the claim should be rejected, citing Jaber v Basma (1952) 14 WACA 140.  The Court disagreed:

[It] has been proved that the Plaintiff lost his luggage whilst in the custody of the Defendant and that he stayed in Tel Aviv for a period of 12-13 days without receiving it. In such a situation one need not be a magician to conjure that the Plaintiff would need to buy clothes and related items for his daily use. … Counsel for the Defendant has argued that since the loss had not been specifically proved, the claim must not be countenanced by this Court. My response to that submission is to ask whether it would serve the interest of justice to do so? It has not been disputed that the Plaintiff stayed in Tel Aviv for 12-13 days without his luggage and as such the Plaintiff must have procured some clothes to use. It will be most unreasonable to believe that he used the clothes he traveled in for that period. In the circumstance, I hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to special damages based on the special circumstances of this particular case.

Twenty-five per cent interest was ordered to be paid on the special damages from from 10 September 2013 to the date of judgment.

Nicol v Air Maroc (Koroma J, High Court of Sierra Leone, 10 October 2015, unreported)

The oil of speculation

Expert evidence comes in many shapes and sizes.  Circular shouldn’t be one of them.

On2 February 2014 Rose Peralta entered a California supermarket to buy bread.  As she approached the bakery her left foot slid and she fell, suffering injury.  She did not see anything on the floor before or after falling but said she felt as though she had slipped on oil or grease.  She was observed to be wearing shoes with a 3-inch stiletto heel.

Peralta issued proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  She relied on an opinion from a civil engineer.  The engineer opined that the flooring would be dangerously slippery if grease or oil were present, and that the fall would not be expected to occur without such substances on the floor.

GIFSec.com
Image from here

The defendant sought summary dismissal of the claim which was granted: Peralta v The Vons Companies Inc (L.A. Co. Sup. Ct, Oki J, 14 February 2017, unreported).  Peralta appealed.

The appeal was dismissed.  Concerning the engineer’s opinion the Court said –

Peraltas … attempt to establish there was a slippery substance on the floor through Avrit’s declaration, in which he opines that the manner in which Rose fell is consistent with a slip created by a foreign substance. Mere conjecture, however, is “legally insufficient to defeat summary judgment.” (Buehler v. Alpha Beta Co. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 729, 734.) The mere possibility that there was a slippery substance on the floor does not establish causation. Absent any evidence that there was a foreign substance on the floor, or some other dangerous condition created by or known to Vons, Peraltas cannot sustain their burden of proof.

The opinion was considered to be, in effect, speculation.

Peralta v The Vons Companies Inc (California Court of Appeal, 30 May 2018)

Don’t wait!

Lorenza Kopacz was 80 years old when she came to the emergency room at Banner Health in Arizona. She complained of chest heaviness and shortness of breath. One of the facility’s doctors examined her and recommended cardiac catheterisation. The procedure was performed in 23 December 2013 by way of an incision in the right groin allowing access to the femoral artery.

Mrs Kopacz did not enjoy a good result. Severe pain, bleeding and swelling of the groin followed, spiralling into cardiogenic shock, atrial fibrillation, severe sepsis and hypotension. There was a succession of hospital care and rehabilitation. Her condition stabilised between March and July 2014.

banner_health
Image from here

On 21 January 2016 Mrs Kopacz issued proceedings in negligence against the hospital in Maricopa County Superior Court. the hospital sought dismissal of the claim on limitations grounds. The application was granted: Kopacz v Banner Health (Maricopa Co. Sup. Ct, Brnovich J, 2017, unreported). Kopacz appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. Arizona law provided that a medical negligence claim accrued when the plaintiff had reason to connect their injury with some causative factor in a way that would put a reasonable person on notice to investigate whether the injury may be someone’s fault. Once that intellectual threshold was crossed, the plaintiff had two years to commence a claim.  Mrs Kopacz knew or should have known of a possible claim by 27 December 2013. She responded that her medical condition prevented her understanding what had happened and its cause. While Arizona law allowed for a limitation period to be delayed while a claimant was “of unsound mind”, hard evidence of incapacity was required. The plaintiff’s self-report was insufficient, even when supported by an affidavit from a family member. Accordingly, Mrs Kopacz had issued out of time.

Kopacz v Banner Health (Arizona Court of Appeals, 5 July 2018)

The Mutiny continues

Pitcairn Island, some readers will know, was settled by the mutineers of HMAV Bounty.  Their descendants make up most of the 50-person population of the Island.  The national occupation, it appears, is keeping lawyers employed.

Michael Warren was the mayor of Pitcairn Island.  Alarmingly (since he worked in child protection), he was charged with possession of child pornography and of grossly indecent items.  The matter was dealt with in the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 20 months: The State v Warren (2016) Radio New Zealand, 5 March 2016.. His appeal to the Pitcairn Islands Court of Appeal [6 July 2016] was dismissed: Warren v The State (2016) Radio New Zealand, 14 July 2016 . He appealed to the Privy Council.

Pitcairn_Island_In_The_Distance
Pitcairn Island (Image from here)

Perhaps in keeping with the Island’s mutinous heritage the appellant submitted that the Pitcairn Constitution Order 2010 was undemocratic, thereby breaching the Bill of Rights 1688 and various international human rights norms.  It followed (he said) that all arrangements for trials relating to Pitcairn were unlawful.

The Pitcairn Constitution Order was made under §2 of the British Settlements Act 1887 (UK) which says –

It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen in Council from time to time to establish all such laws and institutions, and constitute such courts and officers, and make such provisions and regulations for the proceedings in the said courts and for the administration of justice, as may appear to Her Majesty in Council to be necessary for the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty’s subjects and others within any British settlement.”

Following Sabally and N’Jie v Attorney General [1965] 1 QB 273, the Board accepted that the British Settlements Act 1887 did in fact enable the Crown to create a non-representative legislature where the population was too sparse or little-educated.  This was the situation of Pitcairn, whose population “is approximately 50 persons of whom fewer than 40 are adults”.

The appeal was dismissed

Warren v The State (Privy Council, 30 July 2018)

Pius wasn’t on the ballot

The 1949 Australian Federal Election is usually remembered for the election of the long-lived Liberal/Country Party government which lasted until 1972. It threw up one other interesting result: a High Court decision which (a little surprisingly) has never been reported.

Gordon Anderson was the winning candidate for the newly-formed electorate of Kingsford-Smith.  He took 49.7% of the vote.  His election was challenged by independent candidate Henry Crittenden (who took a whopping 3.2%).  Crittenden alleged that the Gordon – a Roman Catholic – was under an allegiance to the “Papal State”.  This would mean that his election breached §44(i) of the Australian Constitution. That section provides that –

Any person who … is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

By contrast, s.116 of the constitution states that “no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office … under the Commonwealth”.

Chick
Nope! (Image from here)

The case was brought in the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Anderson applied to stay the proceedings as vexatious. The matter was dealt with by Fullagar J. His Honour said –

[E]very person born in Australia, into whatever religion he may be born and whatever religion he may embrace, is according to the law of this country … a British subject owing allegiance to His Majesty, and that of that allegiance he cannot rid himself except in certain prescribed ways. … But the root of the matter, to my mind, lies in the fact that the petitioner really seeks to revive a point of view which was abandoned in England in 1829, when §2 of Act 10 Geo. IV, c. 7 enacted that any person professing the Roman Catholic religion might lawfully sit and vote as a member of either House of Parliament, if in other respects duly qualified. Section 116 of our own Constitution was, of course, not enacted by men ignorant or unmindful of history, and it is, in my opinion, §116, and not §44(i) of our constitution which is relevant when the right of a member of any religious body to sit in parliament is challenged on the ground of his religion. Effect could not be given to the petitioner’s contention without the imposition of a “religious test”. In my opinion, the ground put forward … is quite untenable.

The application was dismissed with costs against the petitioner.

Crittenden v Anderson (High Court of Australia, Fullagar J, 23 August 1950, unreported)