Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation System

Question: Discuss about the Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation System. Answer: Introduction: The lawsuits in which a group of people collectively come together to commence the claims against a different person is known as the Class action. One among the other members of the whole group represents such group in a collective and united manner. As usual, the plaintiff takes legal action against the defendants in a class action on the behalf of the collective group that also considers the people not present during the occasion of litigation (Anderson and Trask 2012). Therefore, this is an individual point towards the key differentiation in a normal court case and a class action, as in the former case, the parties have an obligation of being present physically at the same time as the legal actions are continued. The laws of each state describe the method, which governs and deals with a class action. However, in general, the class action group fit in for the individuals that are being injured in the similar and identical way, by the similar defendant. Therefore, as an alternative to the initializing of the different dealings for a comparable matter, the class action assists the persons that are in the right position to that class action in an unaccompanied lawsuit and the same make a decision upon the claimed injury (Eisenberg 2016). All the way through the evaluation of the connection amid an employer and an employee, a class action may perhaps be avoided, if such a appraisal is being performed in a periodical manner. The engineers have an ability to gain benefits from the class actions for the avoidance of the concern, which have a claim against them. Even though, in case of a class action, one of the harmed parties can be proved erroneous, the establishment of the complete class action can be shuddering (Sherman 2017). Therefore, the actions can have a conclusion and ending easily, without any harassment. In addition, there can be a reduction in the damages alleged through such class actions. Class actions also have an ability of the unification of the indemnity to be compensated, and for this reason avoiding the litigations that have a duplicative nature. The problem, which has been lifted up in the preceding litigations not in favor of the company, or against another association, can have a use as a leading beam for treating the current action, next to the taking of the precautions to avoid future claims (Johnson 2013). In the case of Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd Ors [2014] VSC 663, the class action was brought against SPI. SPI i.e. Electricity Services Pty Ltd was formerly known as the SPI Electricity Pty Ltd. The case was against UAM i.e. the contractor of maintenance who had the accountability of the periodical examination of the power line up and against the State parties. The State parties comprised of the diverse units that fitted into the State of Victoria and as they were obliged of combating of the fires, administration of the forest land and keeping a watch over of the emergencies (Australasian Legal Information Institute 2014). At this time, a series of individuals can draw closer for the initiation of the class actions in opposition to the parties highlighted in the cases above. Leo Keane was the one who took an initiative of bringing up the class action although, soon after on, the claimant was replaced with Carol Ann Matthews. Mathews made the class action that was on behalf of those considered in the summarization underneath: The people who had claimed for an individual injury; The people who had gone through a monetary loss, that had no dues to the harm caused to their possessions or for the damage caused to those persons; As per the Part 3 of the Wrongs Act 1958, the individuals who were dead owing to fire; and The persons who went through a loss or injury towards their property (State Government of Victoria 2014) In the case quoted above, there was a completion to the significance of approximately an amount of $500 million had been achieved although, any one of the parties under the case did not acknowledge the legal responsibility involved. On the other hand, this did not mean that there was no accountability in the given case. There is a tough base for the acknowledgment of legal responsibility for the damages, which resulted from the bushfires of the Black Saturday (Farnsworth 2016). These have a nature of carelessness and negligence of pure monetary loss. The base of these laws has been highlighted before the application of the above in the given case below: Carelessness or negligence is one among the torts in the country, Australia. Underneath negligence, an entity is indebted towards a responsibility of care towards one another and there is a contravention of the duty, which has consequences in causing harm or injury to the other person (Turner 2013). In order to get an establishment of a case of casualness, there must be a clear establishment of the obligation of care. This has to be followed by a contravention of the duty of concern and the violation has a result in an injury or damage. The above constitute the indispensable elements of negligence, devoid of which a case of negligence is unattainable (Greene 2013). The validation in the wake of negligence is the affixation of a commitment of care on populace carrying on some doings, which can cause a risk that would result in an injury to the other person. However, the cause between the injury and the casualness must have a direct connection. The damage caused need to have a substantial nature and cannot be too small. Finally yet importantly, there must be an ability of foreseeing the risks and hazards, to establish a breach of duty of concern and care (Latimer 2012). The case of the snail in the bottle also known as the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 is a leading example of negligence and its arguments. In the case mentioned above, Donoghue who was the end user had drunk the ginger beer from the bottle produced by Stevenson. After drinking the beer, he fell ill which was a result of the snail found dead in the bottle. The producer held that the plaintiff should sue the caf owner as he had served the bottle and not the producer himself. The cafe was located in Paisley, Renfrewshire but the court apprehended and held that the producer company has an obligation towards the maintenance of the duty of concern to its clients and therefore, had to pay required compensation Donoghue for her losses that were a result of negligence on the part of the producer (Kelly et al. 2014). A comparable observation was in use in the case of the Grant v The Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2, where the producer company had an obligation to reimburse Grant for the resultant dermatitis towards the negligence of the defendant in the production of the woolen underpants (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2014). In the above-mentioned case study, the neglected scenario was applied through the legal legislation of the Wrongs Act 1958. Section 48 of the given act has a covering of the essential ideologies connected with the negligence. The section also commands that the threat or risk has to be expected or predictable. As per the section 49 of the given act, the load of taking safety measures is determined through the information of evasion of the risk of damage, in addition to the acts succeeding and those which could have been undertaken to diminish the risk of injury (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2014). In the given case, the claimant had to ascertain the negligence of SPI and the burden of establishing the same had been placed on the applicant under section 52 of the Act. It was based on the stability of likelihood in addition to the relevant particulars that were considerable to the problem of the occurrences (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2014). SPI had successfully proved that there was an existence of genuine risk of collapse related to the planned assessment. For SPI, the negligence had been claimed about the trouble in lawful sense, the asset managing, the re-closer of the oil-operated circuit, the damper under target, and the administration of electricity. As per Osborn J, SPI had to have well-known concerning the probable risks (State Government of Victoria, 2014). In the event of undertaking of pre fire scheduled inspection, there was failure in applying due skill and care. Inspection was done before the occurring the fire and last occurred until February in the year 2008. Therefore, it can be said that for both the parties, negligence forms the basis of legal actions (Bender 2015). In the previous part, fixing of the legal liability of negligence was highlighted was fixed over SPI and UAM. Consequence of such incident was rising of the class actions by individual. Nonetheless, recovery is imposed with several limits and it is about different individual class. These individuals are those whom damage has been caused and refereed earlier. Claims resulting from the negligence leads to economic loss and limitations are limited to such claims. Economic loss that is suffered and borne by single individual is related to negligent pure economic loss. Such loss does not arise from the physical injury that is caused to individuals. The loss is attributable to the economic loss caused to an individual. Individuals who lost their income-gaining source or livelihood forma the part of class action that is highlighted above (Chow and Chan 2014). Principle of pure economic loss would be applied under the incident that resulted from fire. The recovery rule is not possible to apply in the event of establishing this principle. Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, [1868] UKHL 1 forms the basis for this rule. Under this rule, it is held by judges that something that cannot be covered as established in the given case is economic loss. Under the given case, the construction of reservoir was done on land that was abandoned. Defendant owned the reservoir and he made se his land for constructing purpose. Mine was disused and reservoir was placed on that mine. Filtering of water from reservoir was done through the mine that was not used and eventually it was scattered over the area of working mine. The plaintiff owned the area of working mine. The mining area owned by plaintiff suffered from extensive damage. Using the land in non-natural way by defendant rather than causing the economic loss was the reason that he was held solely and legally responsible. The same principle can be established in another case and the case was Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966] 1 QB 56. The case was about the eruption of virus in the premises of defendant and such virus infected the cattle of plaintiff. The resultant affect was that cattle were infected and were unable to sell in the market and could not get the price. In this case, plaintiff was regarded as auctioneer and there was loss in the profit. It was highlighted by plaintiff that selling the cattle would have given them profitable amount, had the virus would have not entered. However, the claims put forward by plaintiff resulted in pre economic loss and it was not possible to recover such amount (McDermott Will Emery 2007). Therefore, it can be concluded on the basis of above two cases that is Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966] 1 QB 56 and Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, [1868] UKHL 1, the individuals in the class actions would not be able to claim damages and have restrictions in doing so (Lenz 2015). The reason attributable to this is that it has resulted in pre economic losses. In this case, it is possible to deal with the claims that has aroused due to negligence that has been done against any organization. The case concerning Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd Ors provides the basis of example for claim management resulting from negligence. An opportunity concerning with the limitation of exposure regarding the claims of negligence is also depicted in the given case (Thompson 2016). An organization should keep about updating the claims concerning precedents in order to evade the chances of claims that is being raised against them. Judges takes the decisions regarding precedents. They are regarded as the order of court that has been decided in the court of law and related to some other case. It is necessary to take care of established precedents in addition to precedents. This can be done at the same time when the actions for avoiding the claims of negligence that has been raised are undertaken. In addition to this, it is possible to become reliable on such cases, once the case of negligence has been used. This is so because, it is acceptable fact that precedents would always support their side for the purpose of establishment of their side of story. In order to depict the case for using it in a particular case, it becomes essential to establish and discuss some of the cases related to Mathews (Higgs et al. 2016). The elaboration of such cases is shown below: In this case of there was an explosion resulting from the negligence and carelessness in maintain the plant by defendant. The case is Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 27. In the Court of South Victoria, Esso was defendant against whom plaintiff initiated the case. Majority of the cases in this area was mainly concerned with the pure economic loss. This particular case presented in providing the judgment was identical to Donoghue v Stevenson. This was done in addition to Grant v Australian Knitting Mills. Esso upon which the similarity was drawn owed a duty of care to consumers. This resulted in the damaging of property and was because of stopping of the gas. For such economic loss, the statutory framework cannot be put on duty on Esso because of such economic loss (Sharma and Bhatnagar 2014). Therefore, it was held that the economic loss duty was not owed to Gillard J held by Esso. Another case was about the question that was raised concerning the builder of commercial building or architect liability before the high court. Question was raised regarding the succeeding purchaser of such building. The question was about the defect in the construction or designing of the building. The subsequent purchaser of the building resulted in economic loss. A landmark decision was given by high court and in such case, liability of architect or builder was denied in the judgment. The builder or architect working in the current scenario can use this case, where the subsequent claims would be raised against the purchaser (Harvey and Marston 2012). Another case is of Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520. In this case, plaintiff was General Jones and property named under him in the building that belonged to a person named Burnie. Burnie was a named defendant and the work of him was carried under few independent contractors. Building was burned because it caught fire and this was result of negligence of the contractors. Property of plaintiff was destroyed because of this happening. The rule given under Rylands v Fletcher was abolished by high court under the case. Giving away of the liability resulting in the economic loss was given by using of Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd. It is highlighted in the previous section that the individual can claim damages for which they have denied the recovery (Grave et al. 2012).Therefore, it is clearly depicted that each case presented can be used for disadvantage and advantage to be used in the particular case. Hence, through the established cases, th e companies are capable of paying heeds. It can also be done through which company can do the cancellation of claims. This is mainly in regard with another party. There is a need to comply with the code of ethics by engineers in Australia. It is in relation with the field knowledge and experience and this is referred to as Engineers Australia code of ethics. Four core areas are forms the basis of segmentation of the code. This will help the engineers in demonstrating and practicing competently, integrity, exercising leadership and promoting sustainability. Claim of negligence is barred in successful manner and code of ethics acting as standard (Engineers Australia 2015). Engineers are expected to be honest and trustworthy in their work, showing respect of dignity to others and they are required to conscience that is well informed. They should learn more by maintaining professional competence. The needs of stakeholders should be recognized along with the needs of future generation. It would help in act avoidance resulting in injury or harm. In addition to the above, the steps taken for avoiding the occurrence of such incidents are ensured (Engineers Australia 2015). There are chances of claims that are raised for the cause of negligence despite the practicing of code of ethics by engineers. Capability of engineers and the human nature determines the adherence to code of ethics by engineers. It is certainly possible for engineers to breach the claim resulting from negligence (Levinson et al. 2013). References: Anderson, B., and Trask, A. (2012) The Class Action Playbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2014) Matthews v AusNet Electricity Services Pty Ltd Ors [2014] VSC 663 (23 December 2014). [Online] Australasian Legal Information Institute. Available from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/663.html?stem=0synonyms=0query=title(Matthews%20and%25 Bender, M., 2015. Construction Law. Chow, K.F. and Chan ChuenFye, P., 2014. Building and construction law.Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases, (2014), p.102. Eisenberg, J.N. (2016) Litigating Securities Class Actions. New York: LexisNexis. Engineers Australia. (2015) The Ethical Engineer. [Online] Engineers Australia. Available from: https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/portal/news/ethical-engineer Farnsworth, S. (2016) Black Saturday bushfires: Victims to get compensation payouts before Christmas. [Online] ABC News. Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/black-saturday-bushfire-survivors-to-receive-payout-christmas/8099322 Grave, D.B., Adams, K., and Betts, J. (2012) Class Actions in Australia. Sydney: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia. Greene, B. (2013) Course Notes: Tort Law. Oxon: Routledge. Harvey, B., and Marston, J. (2012) Cases and Commentary on Tort. 6thed. New York: Oxford University Press. Higgs, N., Jackson, S., Minogue, A., Bishop, F., Kirkham, K. and Wild, J., 2016. Construction Law Quarterly.Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law,169(6), pp.258-265. Johnson, E. (2013) To Establish Justice for All: The Past and Future of Civil Legal Aid in the United States [3 volumes]: The Past and Future of Civil Legal Aid in the United States. California: ABC-CLIO. Kelly, D., Hammer, R., and Hendy, J. (2014) Business Law. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge. Latimer, P. (2012) Australian Business Law 2012. 31st ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Limited. Legal Information Institute. (2017) Precedent. [Online] Legal Information Institute. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/precedent Lenz, C.H., 2015. International Construction Arbitration Law, by Jane Jenkins. Levinson, S., Woodruff, P. and Parker, J. eds., 2013.Loyalty: NOMOS LIV(Vol. 54). NYU Press. Mason, J., 2016.Construction law: From beginner to practitioner. Routledge. McDermott Will Emery. (2007) Defending Against Class and Collective Employee Actions. [Online] McDermott Will Emery. Available from: https://files.mwe.com/info/news/wp0207a.pdf Sharma, D. and Bhatnagar, P., 2014. Risk Allocation Subsequent Legal Issues in Construction Contracts. Sherman, E.F. (2017) Class Actions and Duplicative Litigation. [Online] Maurer School of Law: Indiana University. Available from: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2066context=ilj State Government of Victoria. (2014) In The Supreme Court Of Victoria. [Online] State Government of Victoria. Available from: https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/supreme/resources/5009fd2c-2fe2-4f69-b422-96bf249c6c6a/reasons+of+justice+osborn+for+judgment+given+on+23+december+2014.pdf Thompson, P., 2016. FIDIC: correct contract selection: construction law-contracts.Without Prejudice,16(4), pp.21-22. Turner, C. (2013) Unlocking Torts. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.