Subjects under Western Sydney University
Document Details

Torts Midsemester Notes

User Description:
These notes are very useful and are a good means for you to understand the course more swiftly. Good Luck!

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:
22 Pages Complete Study Notes > 2 Years old
Share

5 Ex Credits


Document Screenshots:
Topics this document covers:
Tort law English tort law Judicial remedies Delict Negligence Causation Duty of care Tort Nervous shock in English law Damages Contributory negligence Remoteness in English law
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 English tort law Judicial remedies Delict Negligence Causation Duty of care Tort Nervous shock in English law Damages Contributory negligence Remoteness in English law
Sample Text:
Today, for the tort of negligence to be established, a duty of care must first be shown to exist. The civil liability acts have not altered this requirement. As Lord Macmillan put it in Donoghue v Stevenson (at 619), the “categories of negligence” are never closed. The duty of care has been described as “the unnecessary fifth wheel on the coach”. This view was based partly on the idea that the most important thing to be decided in a negligence case was whether there had been a breach of duty, and indeed in most litigated cases, this is the issue to be decided. The duty of care operates to define the scope...
Similar Documents to Torts Midsemester Notes

Cases Summary

This student studied:
University of New South Wales - LAWS1061 - Torts

Cases Summary

1 Ex Credit

View Details

Tort of Negligence

This student studied:
Monash University - LAW5003 - Principles of Torts

If P is able to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the following elements = negligence 1. DUTY OF CARE (D owed P a duty of care) 2. BREACH OF DUTY (that duty of care was breached by D, having fallen below the standard of a reasonable person) 3. CAUSATION (that breach was the cause of P’s loss 4. REMOTENESS (the loss suffered by P was not too remote) 5. NO DEFENCES (the absence of defences by D for the loss suffered by P) D will be held liable against P in negligence.

5 Ex Credits

View Details

Torts - Negligence Notes

This student studied:
Monash University - LAW2202 - Torts B

Exam notes cover tort of negligence. Includes flow charts, cases, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, remoteness and defences. Example: DUTY OF CARE (DOC) P must show that D owed P a duty of care. There a 3 types of situations: 1. Settled law that a duty of care exists 2. Settled law that a duty of care does not exist 3. No settled law on whether a duty of care exists or does not exist – general and particular duty situations To establish a DOC 1. Determine whether the law is settled as to the existence of a duty of care in the given scenario 2. If not settled (and also not a particular duty category) apply the current approach to determining duty of care in general scenarios 2.1 Reasonable Foreseeability test + 2.2 Salient Features Analysis Established duty of care (settled law) The DOC relationship between P and D falls within the established category of; • Driver and other Road users: Broadhil v Young • Driver/passenger: Chapman v Hearse • Doctor/patient: Rodgers v Whitaker • Employer/employee: Smith v Charles Baker co • Occupier/invitee: Heaven v Pender • Manufacturer/consumer: Donoghue v Stevenson • Negligent mistreatment/people being advised • School authorities/students • Local councils/persons requiring rezoning information • Dog owners/people who may be bitten • Council/ user of beach for waterski: Vairy v Wyong Shire Council • Jailer/ prisoner • Occupier of private land/ entrants on the land: Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna • Landlord/tenant: Parker v SA Housing Trust – daughter of tenant burt by faulty gas oven • Landlord/ 3rd parties: Jones v Bartlett – son walked into glass door not fitted with standard 2nd. If there is no settled law, D’s DOC to P can be established by implementing the reasonable foreseeability test. Reasonable foreseeability test – 2 stage test The test is whether it was reasonably foreseeable, in the sense that it was ‘likely to occur’ or ‘not unlikely to occur’ (Caterson) and was not far-fetched or fanciful (FFF) (possibility, not probability) (Sulivan v Moody), that a failure to exercise reasonable care could result in harm to the P or a class of person to which s/he belongs (Donoghue v Stevenson; Chapman v Hearse). Chapman v Hearse: Mr Chapman (the Appellant) drove negligently causing an accident. His car flipped over and he was thrown into the road where he lay unconscious. A Dr. Cherry, who was driving past, stopped his vehicle and went to help Mr Chapman. While he was attending to Chapman, Dr. Cherry was struck by a car driven by Mr Hearse (the Respondent) who was also driving negligently. Dr Cherry died as a result. 1.Reasonable Foreseeability Test • Don’t need to foresee the ‘precise sequence of events’ • The question is whether a consequence of the same general character of injury as what occurred is reasonably foreseeable. Eg If you don’t drive carefully, everyone on the road is at risk around you” • Eg it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would stop to help Mr Chapman, and that in doing so it was ‘not unlikely’ that they may themselves be injured. There was therefore a duty of care. Consider: 1. Class of person - What class of persons might possibly be put at some risk of injury in some way if the defendant failed in some way to take reasonable care? Either the P themselves; or The class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member (Chapman v Hearse)
 Eg road users or concert goers 2. Is the plaintiff one of those people or fall within this group?
 3. Was the injury/damage reasonable foreseeable? • ‘likely to occur’ or ‘Not unlikely to occur’ (Caterson v Commissioner for Railways) • The reasonable person must have foreseen a real, rather than far-fetched or fanciful, possibility of some harm to the P (Sullivan v Moody) What is the general class of injury? (ie personal injury, property damage, mental harm or pure economic loss) (Chapman)
 Reasonable person = reasonable person in the position of the defendant could reasonably forseen Reasonable foreseeability is necessary but not yet sufficient to establish a DOC where there is no settled law (Sulivan v Moody). This is because of the concern that claims of negligence may get out of hand, thus, P If the situation does not fall into one of these categories you will have to establish DOC by the salient features of the case (Sullivan v Moody)

5 Ex Credits

View Details

Comprehensive Torts Notes

This student studied:
University of Western Australia - LAWS4106 - Torts

These notes go through all Torts II and all cases and legislation supporting - very comprehensive.

5 Ex Credits

View Details