ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Negligence-Police constable-Arrest of offender-Detention in cell-Duty of H. C. OF
arresting constable to exercise reasonable care for safety of person of offender during detention.
H., a constable of police, in company with another constable S. arrested J. on a charge of assault and took him to a police station manned solely by H. At the station H., in the presence of S., searched J. who had just lighted a cigarette. H. gave evidence that he took from J. inter alia matches, cigarettes and tobacco and that as he was taking J. to a cell S. asked J. to extinguish the cigarette and put his thumb and fingers around the end of it to see that J. had done SO. J. then placed the cigarette in his coat pocket. It was 10.45 p.m. when J. was locked by H. in the cell. At 11.30 p.m., S. having returned to his own station, H. observed the cell in which J. had been placed and saw nothing untoward. At 2.15 a.m. on the following morning H. found the cell on fire and J. perished in the flames. J.'s widow brought an action under the Fatal Accidents Act 1934 (Tas.) for the benefit of herself and her four young children against inter alios H. and in such action the jury found that H. was negligent in that he failed thoroughly to search the prisoner before locking him up and to take adequate precautions in respect of the inspection of J. at reasonable intervals throughout the night. Damages were assessed at £7,550. Notwithstanding the jury's verdict the trial judge entered judgment for H., which judgment was reversed on appeal by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. From this decision H. appealed to the High Court.
Held (1) that H. was subject at common law to a duty to exercise reason- able care for the safety of J. during his detention in custody; (2) that it was not open to the jury to find that a failure on the part of H. in searching J.
to discover cigarettes and matches in his possession amounted to a breach on the part of H. of his duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his prisoner (3) that it was not open to the jury to find that H. was in breach of his duty in failing to make periodical inspections of the cell between 11.30 p.m. and 2.15 a.m. on the night in question.
In cases where very grave damage would not or might not have ensued if a precaution, trifling in itself, had been taken or more thoroughly taken it is especially necessary to guard against the application of too high a standard
Decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (Full Court), reversed.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
On 3rd August 1956 Gloria Elaine Jarvis (hereinafter called the plaintiff) brought proceedings in the Supreme Court…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Howard v Jarvis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Howard v Jarvis [1958] HCA 19
Case
[1958] HCA 19
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appeal arose from an action brought by the widow of William John Jarvis under the Fatal Accidents Act 1934 (Tas.) against Constable Trevor Colin Howard and others, seeking damages for her husband's death. Jarvis had been arrested by Howard and another constable, searched, and then locked in a cell at a police station manned solely by Howard. Later that night, the cell caught fire, and Jarvis perished. The jury found Howard negligent in failing to thoroughly search Jarvis and to conduct regular inspections of the cell.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether Constable Howard owed a duty of care to Jarvis during his detention, and if so, whether the jury's findings of negligence in relation to the search and the lack of inspections were legally sustainable. Specifically, the court had to determine if a failure to discover cigarettes and matches during the search constituted a breach of duty, and if the absence of periodic inspections between 11:30 p.m. and 2:15 a.m. was negligent.
The High Court affirmed that Constable Howard, by arresting and detaining Jarvis, assumed a duty at common law to exercise reasonable care for his safety. However, the Court found that it was not open to the jury to conclude that a failure to discover cigarettes and matches during the search amounted to a breach of this duty, particularly given the potential for a "trifling" precaution to prevent "very grave damage." The Court also held that the jury's finding of negligence regarding the failure to conduct periodic inspections between 11:30 p.m. and 2:15 a.m. could not be supported, as there was no evidence to suggest Howard ought to have stayed awake or arranged for regular wake-up calls to inspect the cell.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturned the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, and restored the judgment of the trial judge, which had entered judgment for Constable Howard. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the order of the Full Court was discharged.