Government Liabilities Part 2

Summary

This video discusses the government's liability in relation to tort law, particularly focusing on the conditions under which the government can be held accountable for wrongful acts committed by its officers. The key requirements for the government's liability include proving that the officer acted in good faith, within the scope of their duties, and under government orders. Several case examples illustrate the application of these principles, including negligence and injury claims. The video also covers the limitations on liability, such as when an officer is protected by law, and the importance of filing claims against the state government rather than individual officers.

Takeaways

• 😀 The term 'tort' refers to civil wrongs arising from breaches of duty, as opposed to criminal offenses, with negligence being a common example.
• 😀 Government liability in tort arises when a public officer commits a wrongful act, and specific conditions are met under the Government Proceedings Act 1956.
• 😀 To establish government liability, it's crucial to prove that the officer involved was a government employee and acted in good faith, under official orders.
• 😀 The case of *Muhammad Nor Effendi* demonstrates that proving the government officer’s identity and the government’s involvement is essential for liability in tort.
• 😀 A key requirement for government liability is identifying which government officer committed the negligence, as shown in *Abdul Rahman v. Government of Malaysia*.
• 😀 The government is not liable for acts committed by its officers during the exercise of judicial functions, as per Section 6(3) of the Government Proceedings Act.
• 😀 Government officers are only liable if they are employed by the government and acting within their official capacity, as outlined in Section 6(4) and Section 7.
• 😀 Public duties like maintaining infrastructure and services may exempt the government from liability, but negligence in such duties can still lead to legal action.
• 😀 In cases of negligent public construction, such as substandard materials causing accidents, both the officer and the government may be held liable.
• 😀 If suing the government, claims must be filed against the state government, not an individual officer, according to Section 22 of the Government Proceedings Act.
• 😀 Landmark cases like *Muhammad Raha and Ibrahim v. Government of Malaysia* and *Zahara Binti Husein v. Government of Malaysia* illustrate government tort liability in school and military contexts.

Q & A

What is the literal meaning of 'tort' as described in the script?

The literal meaning of 'tort' comes from Latin words 'touches,' meaning 'crooked' or 'twisted,' and the normal French term 'taught,' meaning 'wrong.' It denotes a civil branch of law, distinct from criminal law, related to wrongful acts causing harm.

How does government liability in tort arise?

Government liability in tort arises from the breach of duty by public officers. If an officer's wrongful act or negligence leads to harm, the government may be held responsible, subject to certain conditions as outlined by the Government Proceedings Act.

What is the first requirement for government liability in tort?

The first requirement is that the officer who commits the tort must be a government officer. Additionally, the officer must have acted in good faith and under the orders or instructions of the government.

Can you give an example of a case where government liability was established?

An example is the case of Muhammad Nor Effendi, where the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the defendant was a government officer under Section 5 of the Government Proceedings Act. The lorry driven by the defendant collided with the plaintiff's motorcycle, and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff due to government liability.

What happens if the government officer's identity is not recognized in a tort claim?

If the identity of the government officer who committed the negligence is not recognized, the claim against the government will be dismissed. This was evident in the case of Abdul Rahman v. Government of Malaysia, where the court dismissed the action because the officer's identity was not properly established.

What does Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act state about government liability?

Section 6(2) states that if a written law provides immunity from liability for a government officer's wrongful act or neglect, then the government will also not be liable for the officer's actions. This was illustrated in the case of Zahara binti Hussein v. Government of Malaysia, where the officer's actions were deemed to be in good faith under the Emergency Ordinance, so the government was not liable.

Are government officers immune from liability for their judicial functions?

According to Section 6(3), no action can be brought against the government for any act done by a person exercising judicial functions. Judicial functions are those related to deciding disputes or issuing decisions in legal matters.

Under what circumstances can the government be held liable for negligence in the exercise of public duties?

The government can be held liable for negligence in public duties if the negligent act occurs during the performance of duties related to public services such as construction, maintenance of infrastructure, or public health. For example, negligence in constructing public buildings or roads can lead to liability for the government.

What is required for a party to sue the government for tortious liability?

To sue the government, a party must file the suit against the state government, not an individual officer. Section 22 of the Government Proceedings Act mandates that claims must be directed at the state government itself.

Can you provide an example where a tort claim was made against the government for negligence in a school setting?

In the case of Muhammad Raha Ibrahim v. Government of Malaysia, a student was injured during a gardening class due to the teacher's negligence in handling agricultural tools. The court ruled that the government was liable because the injury occurred during the course of a public duty under government responsibility.