Striking a blow for personal responsibility, the High Court of Australia has ruled that a woman who drank too much at a bar and later injured herself cannot recover from the drinking establishment on the grounds it should have cut her off sooner. Chief Justice Murray Gleeson “said the onus should not be on clubs to prevent injury to those who drank to excess” and wrote: “There are many forms of excessive eating and drinking that involve health risks, but, as a rule, we leave it to individuals to decide for themselves how much they eat and drink. There are sound reasons for that, associated with values of autonomy and privacy.” (Michael Pelly, “Blaming the barman is out: court”, Sydney Morning Herald (soon to adopt registration), Jun. 16)(see May 12, 2003). Judges from the highest courts of New South Wales and Queensland are among the latest to be taken in by a widely circulated list of amusing but entirely fictitious court cases which supposedly won “Stella Awards”; our debunking appeared August 2001. (“Our Stella judges”, MediaWatch, Jun. 14). And the High Court in April heard a case which seeks to overturn the longstanding prohibition on negligence suits against barristers by clients harmed by the errors and omissions they make in advancing legal arguments. “Immunity for advocates has been abandoned in many other countries, including Canada and the United States. However, many Australian barristers argue that the risk of being sued would lead to spiralling insurance premiums and costly litigation.” (Sonia Harford, “Lawyers wait on High Court case”, Melbourne Age, Apr. 25).

Filed under: Australia, personal responsibility