Tort Of Negligence
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Tort Of Negligence as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 271
- Pages: 2
Tort of negligence Issues Duty of care is owned
P
D
Yes. Physical loss
No. Physical loss
Donoghue v Stevenson Mental harm Jaensch v Coffey (Reasonable person test CLA 33) Economic loss Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon
No need to prevent form harm Good Samaritans/Volunteer Disclaim D has control or not P’s vulnerability
Modbury Triangle shopping centre v Anzil Mental loss Tame v New South Wales Economic loss Esanda Finance v Peat Marwick
Not effective Yes. Australian Safety Stores v Zaluzna Cant stray away/ Lack of special knowledge Exists Hedley v Heller Yes
Yes and effective No Modbury v Anzil
O’Dwyer v Leo Buring
Romeo v Conservation Commission of NT
Section 31 Standard care
Could have done better
(Reasonable person in D’s position) Section 32
Have done a what a reasonable person could be expected
O’Dwyer v Leo Buring
Romeo v
1 Not reasonably expected of that person
2 Reasonably expected of that person
Special relationship
Breach standard duty of care
Does not exist. No
1 Foreseeablity
2 Risk not insignificant 3 Probability of risk/seriousness of risk/cost of taking precautions Section 40 Skilled person A person professing to have a particular skill
2 Relevant circumstances
Esanda Finance v
Causation of loss
Yes
No
Section 34 Definition of causation
Yes. Chapel v Hart
No
No According to Section 44 standard of P’s negligence. P is not negligent Not involved in
Yes . P is also negligent.March v Stramare Pty Ltd Involved in
1 Necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm 2 D be responsible for P’s loss Section 50 Contributory negligence Section 42 Maintenance of road Section 43 Criminal activity
P
D
Yes. Physical loss
No. Physical loss
Donoghue v Stevenson Mental harm Jaensch v Coffey (Reasonable person test CLA 33) Economic loss Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon
No need to prevent form harm Good Samaritans/Volunteer Disclaim D has control or not P’s vulnerability
Modbury Triangle shopping centre v Anzil Mental loss Tame v New South Wales Economic loss Esanda Finance v Peat Marwick
Not effective Yes. Australian Safety Stores v Zaluzna Cant stray away/ Lack of special knowledge Exists Hedley v Heller Yes
Yes and effective No Modbury v Anzil
O’Dwyer v Leo Buring
Romeo v Conservation Commission of NT
Section 31 Standard care
Could have done better
(Reasonable person in D’s position) Section 32
Have done a what a reasonable person could be expected
O’Dwyer v Leo Buring
Romeo v
1 Not reasonably expected of that person
2 Reasonably expected of that person
Special relationship
Breach standard duty of care
Does not exist. No
1 Foreseeablity
2 Risk not insignificant 3 Probability of risk/seriousness of risk/cost of taking precautions Section 40 Skilled person A person professing to have a particular skill
2 Relevant circumstances
Esanda Finance v
Causation of loss
Yes
No
Section 34 Definition of causation
Yes. Chapel v Hart
No
No According to Section 44 standard of P’s negligence. P is not negligent Not involved in
Yes . P is also negligent.March v Stramare Pty Ltd Involved in
1 Necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm 2 D be responsible for P’s loss Section 50 Contributory negligence Section 42 Maintenance of road Section 43 Criminal activity
Related Documents
Tort Of Negligence
November 2019 15
Tort Of Negligence
November 2019 15
Tort Law Accident And Negligence
April 2020 26
Negligence
October 2019 19
Tort
May 2020 16