Statements (58)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:area |
Tort law
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Cited in numerous subsequent cases.
Influenced public policy. Discussed in legal journals. Examined in law reviews. Analyzed by legal practitioners. Analyzed the concept of foreseeability. Frequently discussed in legal education. Impacts on future legal interpretations. Impacts on risk management practices. Part of the body of Australian case law. Relevant for legal practitioners. Relevant for personal injury law. Set standards for government accountability. |
| gptkbp:case_interpretation |
Interpreted the law of negligence.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
HCA 63/2003
Involved a claim against a government official. Involved a claim for damages. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Reviewed by legal scholars.
Significant for legal precedents. Influenced legislative changes. Clarified the scope of liability. Reinforced the importance of duty of care. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Important for understanding negligence.
Key case in Australian tort law. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Impacts on public authorities.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_Australia
gptkb:High_Court_of_Australia |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
The court ruled on the issue of negligence.
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
Justice Gummow dissented.
|
| gptkbp:doctrine |
Negligence doctrine.
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
December 2003
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Lewis vs. Ruddock I
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Set a precedent for similar negligence claims.
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Lewis
gptkb:Ruddock |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
[2003] HCA 63
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Majority opinion delivered by Justice Mc Hugh.
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Judicial review of administrative decisions.
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Part of Australian tort law.
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Justices Mc Hugh, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan, and Heydon.
|
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Established guidelines for future negligence cases.
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Duty of care
|
| gptkbp:legal_reasoning |
Examined the relationship between duty and breach.
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Barristers for Lewis
Barristers for Ruddock |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Appeal dismissed.
Significant for public liability claims. |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Cited in tort reform discussions.
Influenced future negligence cases. |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Ruddock_v._Taylor
|
| gptkbp:significance |
It clarified the standard of care in negligence cases.
|
| gptkbp:sound |
August 2003
|
| gptkbp:year |
gptkb:2003
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Lennox_Lewis
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|