Subjects under Monash University
Document Details

Torts Notes

User Description:
These notes outline the elements in each topic covered in Torts and can act as a guide for answering exam answers.

Thinkswap Satisfaction Guarantee

Each document purchased on Thinkswap is covered by our Satisfaction Guarantee policy. If you are not satisfied with the quality of any document, or you believe the document was incorrectly described or categorised, Thinkswap will provide a full refund of exchange credits so you can check out another document. For more information please click here.

This student studied:
Claim a Thinkswap Bounty

Do you know if the Subject listed above has changed recently? Click report to earn free Exchange Credits!

Document Information:
33 Pages Complete Study Notes 1-2 Years old
Share

5 Ex Credits


Document Screenshots:
Topics this document covers:
Tort law Law Common law Trespass Tort Self-defence Letang v Cooper Nuisance Defence of property Citizen's arrest Necessity Trespass in English law Scott v Shepherd
This is a Complete Set of Study Notes

Complete Study Notes typically cover at least half a semester’s content or several topics in greater depth. They are typically greater than 20 pages in length and go into more detail when covering topics.

What are Exchange Credits:

Exchange Credits represent the worth of each document on Thinkswap. In exchange for uploading documents you will receive credits. These can then be used to checkout other documents on Thinkswap.

Topics this document covers:
Tort law Law Common law Trespass Tort Self-defence Letang v Cooper Nuisance Defence of property Citizen's arrest Necessity Trespass in English law Scott v Shepherd
Sample Text:
damages -> nominal PVA • D’s act must be both positive and voluntary (Innes v Wylie) • Positive: more than an omission/passive conduct, D took active measures not merely passive like a door (Innes v Wylie) • Voluntary: willed or directed by D’s conscious mind DIRECTNESS The interference caused to P must follow directly from the D’s act (Hutchins v Maughan) • Log example: Harm must be DIRECT not CONSEQUENTIAL (Reynolds v Clarke) This will be satisfied where: • Interference follows so immediately upon the act of the D that it is “part of the act” (Hutchins v Maughan) • Where D’s act sets off a chain of events, in the absence of any “new and independent intervening cause”, the interference will be direct (Scott v Shepherd) Types of Intervening Acts (If there is an “obvious and visible intervening cause” injury is consequential, not direct): A) Na...
Similar Documents to Torts Notes

Torts Exam Booklet

This student studied:
Bond University - LAWS75-211 - Principles of Tortious Liability

This document is a highly extensive booklet with all the content learned in Principals of Torts. It not only provides relevant cases it also provides descriptions on the case. It is in a format that nicely corresponds with how exam questions should be answered. Used in 162.

5 Ex Credits

View Details

Torts Cases

This student studied:
Monash University - LAW1113 - Torts

This document contains summaries of all the cases that are covered in the Torts unit

1 Ex Credit

View Details

Torts Weeks 1 - 12

This student studied:
Queensland University of Technology - LLB102 - Torts

Section 245 CC (Qld): “Person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person’s consent, or with the other person’s consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, [common law battery] or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other persons consent…” (1). Direct or Indirect Application of Force: (R v Cotesworth) • S245 states that force may be indirect • Must be direct result of def’s actions (Hillier v Leitch) • Cannot be a passive obstruction; i.e. blocking doorway (Innes v Wylie) Was there a direct or indirect application of force to the pl? (2). Consent or Lawful Excuse: • If consent given- no battery (McNamara v Duncan)- may be used as a defence • Lack of consent is recognised by s245 CC • Consent may be expressly implied by situation • Patients undergoing surgery (Department of Health and Community Services v JWB & SMB): “At common law, therefore, every surgical procedure is an assault unless it is authorised, justified or excused by law” o May be implicit due to advice given (McDonald v Ludwig) • People participating in sports o Must occur outside rules of sport (McNamara v Duncan) • Invalidated if fraud or duress or lack or capacity Did ___ give consent to the application of force? Or was there lawful excuse for the def’s actions? (3). Fault- Deliberate or Wilful Act: • Intentional or negligent (Cole v Turner; Exchange Hotel v Murphy) • May still be battery for unintentional interferences if still direct (McHale v Watson) • Knowledge of contact is not required (Law v Visser) • Everyday life (Defence): Physical contact part of everyday life is not battery (Rixon v Star City) Time Limits: • Personal injury- 3 years (LOAA s11) • Property/ no injury- 6 years (LOAA s10 (1) (a)) Were the actions within the relevant time period? Onus of Proof: • HW: onus remain on pl • Non-HW: Pl prove interference, def disprove fault The onus of proof lies upon ___ as the act occurred ____.

5 Ex Credits

View Details

Torts Complete Study Notes

This student studied:
Queensland University of Technology - LLB102 - Torts

Study Notes for Wks 1-12 in Torts LLB102. All lectures covered, should prepare for multiple choice and end of semester exam.

5 Ex Credits

View Details