The Best ... in New Zealand
-
@dogmeat said in The Best ... in New Zealand:
@taniwharugby been there - done that
Watered his lemon too...Either you missed the word "tree" or that's a sensational euphemism.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Best ... in New Zealand:
@Crucial or the new bridge at Taipa, thanks Whinny
Actually, clip on TV1 news...NZTA with signs up wanting people to stop jumping.
Shane Jones saying he's been jumping off to for 50 years and who is going to enforce it?
Cue interviews with locals after they climb out of the water, post Manu.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Best ... in New Zealand:
@taniwharugby said in The Best ... in New Zealand:
@Crucial or the new bridge at Taipa, thanks Whinny
Actually, clip on TV1 news...NZTA with signs up wanting people to stop jumping.
Shane Jones saying he's been jumping off to for 50 years and who is going to enforce it?
Cue interviews with locals after they climb out of the water, post Manu.
There's actually case law in Australia where somebody jumped off a bridge and sued the Council for not doing enough to protect him from injury or some such.
Did a Contract Law course earlier in the year and this case study came up. Will see if I can find it.
Further confirms my opinion of Shane Jones.
-
-
@Crucial yep, go pretty much anywhere there is water deep enough and an elevated area to jump from, over summer kiwi kids (and adults) are doing bombs and manus!
It's good to come home now and then aye bro, eat some ice cream, do some bombs.
@booboo given people will do it regardless, they should do their bit to make it as safe as possible while ensuring people know there is always a risk.
-
Here tis. Aussie, in fact Victorian, case here:
http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/RTA_v_Dederer
Am not a lawyer but my reading of that is that the bridge owner has a duty of care. I would think that Shane Jones' assertion that no-one is going to enforce it leaves the Government open to liability.
Could be wrong ...
-
@booboo while there is a duty of care, when people are knowingly flouting warnings, by-laws or whatever, makes it tough to hold someone responsible, therefore surely they have a responsibility TO make it as safe as possible?
IN this case, I am not sure it is blatant stupidity given people have been jumping for years, apparently without major incident (that I can recall at least) but you cant account for how stupid some people are or will be in the future to be the 1 in however many...
a Tourist died at the Whangarei Falls earlier this year, warning signs everywhere saying unsafe to swim etc
-
@booboo isn't the key difference we dont' have personal liability here, while they do in Aus? So if someone gets injured over there, someone looks around to get the tab picked up. While we're just 'go for it lad, as long as it's not a place of work we'll cover it'.
Fark, I love NZ
-
It's an interesting threshold though.
I was at the Rio Grande Gorge bridge in New Mexico (so the very litigious USA) and despite the landmark bridge having quite low physical barriers for pedestrians they had simply put signs around and had direct phones to the Samaritans at places along the span.
I'm sure you could apply an argument that they haven't taken enough duty of care to remove the option of jumping but they seem to have taken an acceptable approach.
Is Taipa bridge actually dangerous or should signs and education be enough of a mitigation to place responsibility for those using it for a purpose it wasn't intended for?
Mind you, users these days are more likely to be cotton wool kids who expect everyone else to assess danger for them and will readily point the finger afterwards.
-
This is a little bit like the Ngaruawahia rail bridge which has resulted in fatalities, not by jumping into the river but by being hit by trains.
The locals think it is a rite of passage to jump off the bridge despite the signs and fences to restrict access. KiwiRail can't win.
-
@booboo said in The Best ... in New Zealand:
Here tis. Aussie, in fact Victorian, case here:
http://www.unistudyguides.com/wiki/RTA_v_Dederer
Am not a lawyer but my reading of that is that the bridge owner has a duty of care. I would think that Shane Jones' assertion that no-one is going to enforce it leaves the Government open to liability.
Could be wrong ...
The High Court permitted an appeal and held that the lower courts had it wrong. There's a difference between preventing a course of action with a reasonable care taken to reduce or prevent a course of action. Ultimately if you give a reasonable warning and people ignore it, you shouldn't necessarily be found to be negligent and liable because of their actions.
As per GUMMOW J:
This was not a case in which the defendant had done nothing in response to a foreseeable risk. To the contrary, the RTA had erected signs warning of, and prohibiting, the very conduct engaged in by Mr Dederer. … In the circumstances, that was a reasonable response, and the law demands no more and no less. …
The appeal should be allowed with costs. The RTA did not breach the duty of care it owed to Mr Dederer. …
