Abstract
This article considers the problems which arise when statutes seek to make distinctions between different categories of tort liability, focusing particularly on Australian Limitation Acts and contributory negligence legislation. The relationship between trespass and negligence has caused particular difficulties. In the context of the Limitation Acts, a Tasmanian decision, Wilson v Horne, shows that it is advantageous for sexual abuse victims to be able to sue in negligence. However, the result would not necessarily be the same in other jurisdictions because of legislative differences, and recent statutory changes have not improved the lot of sexually abused plaintiffs. In Western Australia, the separate limitation period for trespass poses another set of problems. The contributory negligence legislation also creates difficulties in the context of intentional harm, particularly in two jurisdictions where the legislation is not limited to situations where the defence was available at common law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
