CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board

The appeal concerned the liability of the proprietor and licensee of a hotel for the death of an intoxicated patron, Mr Scott, who died in a motorcycle accident after leaving the hotel. The Motor Accidents Insurance Board (the respondent) brought proceedings against the appellants. The central question was whether the hotel had a duty of care to prevent Mr Scott from riding his motorcycle while intoxicated.

The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the licensee owed a duty of care to Mr Scott to take reasonable steps to prevent him from riding his motorcycle from the hotel while intoxicated. This involved considering whether the circumstances constituted an "exceptional case" where such a duty would arise, and if so, whether the licensee's actions, specifically an offer to call Mr Scott's wife, discharged that duty. The court also had to assess causation, determining whether calling Mr Scott's wife would, on the balance of probabilities, have prevented the fatal accident.

The High Court allowed the appeals, finding that the licensee did not owe a duty of care to Mr Scott in the circumstances. The court reasoned that while the licensee had taken some steps to secure the motorcycle and its keys, Mr Scott had subsequently refused the licensee's offer to contact his wife to collect him, asserting his intention to call her himself. The court held that Mr Scott's explicit refusal and assertion of control over the situation negated any duty on the licensee to take further steps, such as forcibly preventing him from leaving or overriding his instructions. The court concluded that the situation did not meet the threshold for an "exceptional case" where a duty of care would be imposed on the licensee to prevent an adult patron from leaving the premises, particularly when the patron had refused assistance and asserted his autonomy.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and dismissed the appeals to that court. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs.