Howard v Jarvis

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.