Bar Practice Course
Bar Practice Course 204 CLR 333] SCOTT v DAVIS 333 SCOTT AND OTHERS ........................................... APPELLANTS; PLAINTIFFS, AND DAVIS ....................................................................... RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT, [2000] HCA 52 ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Negligence — Vicarious liability — Aeroplane — Pilot asked by owner to take HC OF A temporary control without reward in owner’s absence — Injury to 2000 passenger — Whether owner of plane vicariously liable for pilot’s March 3; negligence. Oct 5 During a birthday party held at a country property, the owner of a two- 2000 seater aeroplane allowed it to be used for a joy-ride. The owner asked a Gleeson CJ, licensed pilot, who was a guest at the party, to fly the plane. There was McHugh, no relationship of master and servant or principal and agent between the Gummow, Hayne and owner and the pilot on contractually agreed terms. The plane crashed Callinan JJ through the negligence of the pilot, causing serious injury to a child who was a passenger in it and nervous shock to his parents. Held, by Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, McHugh J dissenting, that the owner was not vicariously liable for the pilot’s negligence, even though the pilot had taken the passenger on a joy-ride at the owner’s request, because the owner had not retained the direction and control of the plane. Soblusky v Egan (1960) 103 CLR 215, considered and distinguished. Morgans v Launchbury [1973] AC 127, distinguished. Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court): Davis v Scott (1998) 71 SASR 361, affirmed. APPEAL from the Supreme Court of South Australia.
[Show full text]