DOCSLIB.ORG

TORTS 1 – NEGLIGENCE to Successfully Sue A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TORTS 1 – NEGLIGENCE to Successfully Sue A TORTS 1 – NEGLIGENCE To successfully sue a Defendant in the tort of negligence, a Plaintiff must establish 3 requirements: • The defendant owes Plaintiff a duty of care; and • The defendant breached the duty of care; and • The defendant’s breach caused them to suffer reasonably foreseeable harm (known as causation) Requirement 1: Duty of Care The onus is on the Plaintiff to establish the existence of the duty of care Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] established the “Neighbourhood Principle” that identified a number of relationships which, by, law automatically owe a duty of care Established Categories – Manufacturer A manufacturer of goods or products owes a duty of care to people who use their goods or products. See: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] Established Categories – Occupier An occupier of a premises owes a duty of care to all persons entering the premises to ensure that the premises are safe. See: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) Established Categories – Occupier’s Liability An occupier also owes a duty of care to people who are on their premises without their permission See: Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) Occupier’s Liability – Public Authorities Public authorities (government and council bodies and organizations) can often be occupiers. Whether or not public authorities automatically owe a duty of care to people who are situated on areas under their control depends on a range of factors - including whether or not there exists a duty of care to warn of hidden risks See: Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993), Swain v Waverley (2005), Romeo v Conservation Commission (1998), Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) No Established Categories 2 tests must be satisfied: • Was it reasonably foreseeable that the Defendant’s conduct could cause harm to someone in the Plaintiff’s position? See: Donoghue v Stevenson – “neighbour principle” • Are the salient features of the case consistent with the existence of a duty of care? - Relationship between parties - Control - Relative knowledge - Experience - Vulnerability and reliance - Personal responsibility Requirement 2: Breach of Duty See: s9 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) Section 9(1): A defendant breaches their duty of care if: • The risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk that they knew about or ought reasonably to have known about); • The risk was not9 insignificant; and • In the circumstances, a reasonable person in their position would have taken the precautions Section 9(2): To determine what a reasonable person would do, the Court will take into account: • The probability of harm; See: Bolton v Stone (1951) • The likely seriousness of the harm; See: Paris v Stepney Borough Council • The burden of taking precautions; and See: Bolton v Stone (1951) • The social utility of the defendant’s activity See: Watt v Hertfordshire (1954) Requirement 3: Causation See: Section 11 Civil Liability Act The defendant is only responsible for the harm if: • The breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm – the careless act caused, either directly or indirectly, the harm (“factual causation test”) – the “but for” test; and See: Yates v Jones [1990], Chappel v Hart (1998) – “Material Contribution Test”, Cook v ACT Racing Club Inc and the AJC Inc [2001] • It is appropriate for the scope of the liability (“scope of liability test”) of the person in breach to extend to the harm so caused See: Overseas Tankships v Mort [1961] Defences 2 important defences to consider: • Voluntary Assumption of Risk - Plaintiff had full knowledge and appreciation of the risk and freely and willingly agreed to the precise risk that eventuated – of their own free choice without restraint - If it can be shown that plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, defendant may be relieved of all liability See: S13-14 CLA: - Defendant can argue voluntary assumption of risk where the plaintiff was injured doing something obviously risky (obvious to a reasonable person). - The plaintiff is taken to have been aware of the risk, unless the plaintiff proves on the balance of probabilities that they were not aware of the risk See: Agar v Hyde (2000) See: S15 CLA: Defendant not under duty to warm of obvious See: S17-19 CLA: Def not liable for harm from obvious risk of dangerous recreational activity. • Contributory Negligence - If it can be established that plaintiff contributed in some way to their own loss or injury, liability will be apportioned between the defendant and plaintiff. See: Ingram v Britten, Manley v Alexander Vicarious Liability: an employer may be liable for the acts or omission of their employees. See: Century v Northern Ireland (1942), Deatons v Flew (1949) TORTS 1 – NEGLIGENT EXAMPLES Donoghue v Stevenson (1931) AC 564 • Mrs May Donoghue was at a café drinking (allegedly) a ginger beer. • The drink was bought by her friend, from the retailer. • When the remainder of the drink was poured out into Donoghue’s glass, the remains of a decomposed snail floated out of the bottle. • It was not possible to detect the remains of the snail, before consuming most of the contents of the bottle. • Donoghue suffered nervous shock and severe gastro-enteritis as a result of seeing the decomposed snail and consuming the contaminated drink. • Manufacturer owes a duty of care; “neighbourhood principle” must take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable acts/omissions which are likely to injure your neighbour (in this case, manufacturer should have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that each drink was safe to drink – with no unknown substances inside) Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) • Zaluzna was shopping at ASS Pty Ltd on a rainy day – slipped on the west floor near the entrance • ASS Pty Ltd was held liable to compensate for injuries – they had a choice to do something about the floor (e.g. putting a wet floor sign up), but they did not do anything to prevent it, therefore it was their fault Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) • Farmer suspected someone was stealing to petrol from his bowser – he caught the man stealing petrol and shot at his tyres, accidently hurting the woman riding inside the vehicle • She sued for compensation for her injuries: court decided the farmer owed a duty of care and has breached it • Thus, an occupier owes a duty of care event to people who are on their premises without permission – in this case, they should have rung the police. (However, if plaintiff was proven to be committing an indictable offence, the defendant will not be liable) Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) • Submerged rock at a designated swimming area, sign said “Swimming area” • Hidden risk – not foreseeable/obvious and encouraged people to swim there • RIA should have a warning sign (they had control & power over the premises), therefore liable to Nagle. Swain v Waverley (2005) • Submerged sandbar at a patrolled surf beach in between the flags • Hidden risk – not foreseeable/obvious and surfer dived into waves • Court decided there was a duty of care to warn e.g. sign or move flags to a place with no sandbar Romeo v Conservation Commission (1998) • Romeo (15 years old) had been drinking at an unfenced public space on a cliff top; • She fell and became paraplegic: sued CC for compensation for her injuries, saying there should have been a sign • Court decided the danger was obvious to any reasonable person and CC was not liable for injuries and should be able to assume entrants will take reasonable care for their own safety Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) • Plaintiff dived into the sea from a natural rocky platform (not a man-made structure) at a surfing beach • The beach was unpatrolled, had no signs – plaintiff cracked his neck • Judge said signs should be created, but looking forwards, there were plenty of points where the risk occurs and a reasonable council simply would not erect a sign in every single point where danger occurs – too much of a burden (any reasonable person would know not to dive) Bolton v Stone (1951) • Cricket ball cleared Stadium and had hit someone. • Injured party claimed damages. • Cricket club not liable as the likelihood of the harm was very low, and erecting a fence higher than the defendant had already done would be impractical • It is not the law that precautions must be taken against very peril that can be foreseen by the timorous Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) • Worker (Paris) was welding steel. Note that worker only has 1 eye. • Welding is a dangerous activity and the employer says “Use a mask”. • Worker refuses and gets blind • Court decided a reasonable person would of made Paris war the goggle – breach of duty, BC is accountable Watt v Hertfordshire (1954) • Fireman called to accident, the car was not available to secure equipment and the fireman was hurt by loose equipment: tries to sue for negligence • Court decided Hertfordshire was under no obligation to make sure car equipment was there all times and there was no greater risk than usual for a firefighter. (Hertfordshire social utility was enough not to be liable) Yates v Jones [1990] • Yates was injured in a car accident caused by Jones. • Visited in hospital by friend who suggested she take heroin to ease the pain. • Yates became addicted to heroin and sued Jones for the cost of it • Court held addiction not caused by car accident, rather it was caused by the actions of Yates’s friend. Chappel v Hart (1998) • Woman had an operation – surgeon failed to warn her the possibility for nerve damages • Nerve was damaged – if she had known, she wouldn’t had the operation • Court found there was causal connection between a surgeon failure to warn and the injury that was sustained, therefore surgeon was liable Cook v ACT Racing Club Inc and the AJC Inc [2001] • Jockey uses sauna at racetrack and the sauna was overheated which severely de- hydrated jockey.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intentional Torts
    Intentional Torts 1. Tort ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Assault ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Battery ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Sexual Misconduct .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering ............................................................................................................... 3 1.5 False Imprisonment ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Invasion of Privacy ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Directness ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 3. Volition ....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sharma by Her Litigation Representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur V Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560
    FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 File number: VID 607 of 2020 Judgment of: BROMBERG J Date of judgment: 27 May 2021 Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – representative proceeding seeking a declaration that a duty of care be recognised and an injunction be granted restraining its breach – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) – novel duty of care – whether the Minister for the Environment owes Australian children a duty of care when approving under s 130 and s 133 of the EPBC Act the extraction of coal from a coal mine – risk of injury from climate change – claim that CO2 emissions from coal to be extracted will contribute to increased global surface temperatures leading to extreme weather events and consequent exposure of Australian children to the increased risk of personal injury, property damage and economic loss – discussion of applicable legal principles for ascertaining whether a novel duty of care exists – salient features approach adopted – whether feared harm reasonably foreseeable – whether the Minister has control, responsibility and knowledge in relation to foreseeable harm – extent of children’s vulnerability to feared harm – whether recognised relationships between Minister and children exist including by reference to parens patriae doctrine – discussion of coherence in the law – whether imposition of liability in negligence is incoherent with statutory discretion provided to Minister under s 130 and
    [Show full text]
  • Cases and Notes Summary for Tort Law
    CASES AND NOTES SUMMARY FOR TORT LAW University of Alberta, 2015 LAW 440A (Prof. Ubaka Ogbogu) P a g e | 1 P a g e | 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 8 NUISANCE .............................................................................................................................................. 8 GROUND FOR LIABILITY ................................................................................................................ 8 Appleby v Erie Tobacco Co .............................................................................................................. 8 Rogers v Elliott ................................................................................................................................. 9 The Mayor, etc of Bradford v Pickles ............................................................................................... 9 Hollywood Silver FoxFarm ltd v Emmett....................................................................................... 10 Fontainebleau Hotel Corp v Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc .............................................................. 10 Bryant v Lefever .............................................................................................................................. 11 Prah v Maretti.................................................................................................................................. 12 TH Critelli v Lincolm
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Update March 2016
    Legal Update March 2016 Prepared by Malcolm Buck- Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales Admitted -October 1988 Solicitors Regulation Authority No139699 Neighbourly Love? ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ preaches the Bible. Yet disputes between Cricket Clubs and the Owners of Neighbouring Land have become one of the most prevalent issues brought to the attention of Conference. This Legal Update seeks to explain to Leagues and Clubs the present Legal Position in terms of the Laws of Nuisance and Negligence and is a “follow on” to that given to Conference in the Winter of 2008. Since then for example the Media has reported on the case of an Oxfordshire Club Britwell Salome CC introducing a local Rule that a batsman who hits a ball out of the ground from one end will not be credited with the a six, following complaints from a neighbouring owner. Cricket has moved on, with heavier bats resulting in balls being hit further than in yesteryear. Moreover, not all neighbours equate with the now famous opening remark of Lord Denning in the 1977 cricket case of Miller v Jackson (involving a claim brought against the officers of Lintz Cricket Club in County Durham) “ in summer time village cricket is the delight of everyone”. There are instances of neighbours having taken legal steps to stop cricket being played totally on a ground because of the intrusive effect that the game has had on their use and enjoyment of their own Property. In another example Rushden Town Cricket Club in Northamptonshire were initially blocked from putting up practice nets because the local council feared that “the sound of leather on willow would annoy neighbours”.
    [Show full text]
  • Remedies of Tort May Strengthen the Pillar of Civilization
    UITS Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Volume: 6, Issue: 1 ISSN: 2663-1105, December-2018 Remedies of tort may strengthen the pillar of civilization Shahriar Iqbal1 Abstract: Civilization has not come in a day rather human being have been civilized with a long passage of time .Civilization is the result of many elementary things; such as progress in the agriculture, urbanization, occupational specialization etc. Society got a civilized shape by these elements and it become orderly after the enforcement of written code or law. Since remedy based on tort is a legal remedy, it may add and ensure the comfort of the people who are suffered from subtle and minor pang resulting people are more cautious about their rights and duty which may culminate a strong civilized society. Key words: Law of tort and civilization. 1. Introduction Men being a rational animal, order and peace are high age-old aspiration. It is impossible to think coherence for man without law, order and peace. Without it civilization is unattainable, injustice is unchecked and triumphant. The life of men is ‘solitary, nasty, brutish and short’ [1]. Therefore, law plays a vital role against the anarchy and despotism as it is in essence a barrier upon these arbitrary power. ‘The law in its purest and most perfect form would be realized in a social order in which the possibility of an arbitrary or oppressive use of power by private individuals and by government has been successfully obviated’ [2] 2. Methodology To conduct the study systematically it is required to follow one or more research methods for scientific investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • WS2 Negligence (Duty and Breach)
    WS2 Negligence (Duty and Breach) STEP 1: State: the Claimant can consider suing the Defendant for [insert harm] in the tort of NEGLIGENCE • Claimant v Defendant [insert relevant names] • Negligence may be defined as: a breach by the defendant of a legal duty of care owed to the claimant that results in actionable damage to the claimant unintended by the defendant. • For a negligence claim, run through the four elements: Duty of Care, Breach, Causation, Defences. STEP 2: Consider whether the Defendant owes the Claimant a legal DUTY OF CARE 1. ESTABLISHED DUTY SITUATIONS: Established duties of care exist in the following situations: (a) One road user to another (b) Teacher to pupil (c) Doctor to patient (d) Manufacturer to the ultimate consumer of the product (e) Defendant to RESCUER, where the Defendant has created a dangerous situation so that it is reasonable that somebody may attempt rescue (Baker v Hopkins) (f) Driver to pedestrian (Nettleship v Weston) (g) Referee to sport player (Vowles v Evans) (h) Parent/adult in loco parentis to child (i) Advocate to client (Arthur J S Hall v Simons) (j) Road users to road users (Upson) (k) In limited circumstances: Ambulance service to emergency callers (Kent v Griffiths) Established duties of care do NOT exist in the following situations: (a) Soldier to colleague (Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence) (b) Fire service to emergency caller (Capital & Counties v Hampshire County Council) 222 TORT LAW COPYRIGHT YOURGDL 2014 YOURGDL.CO.UK Do the POLICE owe a duty of care? General rule – public policy driven: The police do NOT owe a duty of care to individuals, only to the public at large (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire; confirmed in: Brooks v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police; Osman v UK; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police).
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of the English and French Approaches to Fault in Establishing Tortious Liability Danny Watson
    Style over Substance? A Comparative Analysis of the English and French Approaches to Fault in Establishing Tortious Liability Danny Watson Abstract The English law and French law methods for establishing tortious liability are stylistically divergent. Casuistry prevails in English tort law, whereas the French law of delict (equivalent to English tort law) proceeds rigidly from a general principle of liability in three spartan articles of the Code Civil. The purpose of this article is to examine, with regard to the role of fault in tortious liability for harm caused by things under one’s control, whether these different methods produce substantively different results. The English and French approaches to fault-based liability have evolved near- concurrently. Through examining these policy-based evolutions, it will be shown that both systems have sought to attenuate fault-based liability for harm caused by things under one’s control, in favour of a stricter liability regime. This implies that the inflexible theoretical basis of liability in French law has not prevented the French system from incorporating policy just as fluidly as the English system. An exposition of the diminution of fault-based liability thus provides a salient example of how two legal systems with differing methodologies may coalesce in attaining practical solutions. I. Introduction The French law of liability for harm caused by things under one’s control is founded on a single article1 of the Code Civil. English law relies on the tort of negligence espoused in Donoghue v Stevenson 2 , as well as specific nominate torts, to establish liability for things under one’s control, demonstrating a very different approach.
    [Show full text]
  • NEGLIGENCE and the DUTY of CARE NEGLIGENCE Doing What A
    NEGLIGENCE AND THE DUTY OF CARE NEGLIGENCE Doing what a reasonable person would not do OR Not doing what a reasonable person would do. The most important tort is that of negligence and the most important element of that tort is the duty of care. A person is liable for every negligent act they commit. The control element for legal liability is the requirement for the defendant to owe the plaintiff a duty of care. Usually that negligent conduct falls short of a standard. Thus it would be not feasible for every loss caused by the negligence of another to give rise to an action in tort, there must be some way of deciding when one party has a duty of care in respect of another. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 The Plaintiff went to a café with a friend, who bought her a bottle of ginger beer. After drinking most of it, she found a decomposed snail in the bottle and became ill. The Plaintiff had no contract with the café, so she sued the manufacturers in delict (the Scottish equivalent of tort). Held - The House of Lords said the manufacturers had a duty of care to the consumer of their product, even if they don’t know the product is dangerous and there was no contractual relationship between the parties. But what is the test that is imposed in situations where there has not previously been found to have been a duty of care? According to Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Cost-Benefit Balancing in English Negligence Law
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 77 Issue 2 Symposium on Negligence in the Article 3 Courts: The Actual Practice April 2002 The Emergence of Cost-Benefit Balancing in English Negligence Law Stephen G. Gilles Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen G. Gilles, The Emergence of Cost-Benefit Balancing in English Negligence Law, 77 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 489 (2002). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol77/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE EMERGENCE OF COST-BENEFIT BALANCING IN ENGLISH NEGLIGENCE LAW STEPHEN G. GILLES* INTRODUCTION The subject of this symposium-negligence in the courts-turns out to be surprisingly difficult to investigate. Most American negligence cases are tried to a jury that receives only a general instruction equating negligence with failure to behave like a reason- ably prudent person,] delivers a general verdict without disclosing its reasoning, and is accorded great deference by trial and appellate judges in applying the negligence standard. Consequently, in the United States, much of what negligence means in operation is hidden behind the jury's general verdict-and most of what American judges have to say about negligence is said in the context of directed verdict practice or on appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • NEGLIGENCE, TORT - Defendants Control Over Plaintiff, Or Plaintiff’S What Does One Hope to Gain for Suing for Negligence? Dependence
    NEGLIGENCE, TORT - Defendants control over plaintiff, or plaintiff’s What does one hope to gain for suing for negligence? dependence. - The Tort of Negligence only provides monetary - Special roles that would suggest such a protective compensation for harm down to property, person or duty Step 3: What does it mean to breach your duty? particular economic interests – also known as damages. - Largely an issue of common law, but assisted by the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s48(1)(c): o “In the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken those precautions.” [objective test] - This is a codification of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt - The legislations provides us a framework to use from the Wrongs Act s48: o The probability that the harm would occur if Step 1: Recognize the type of harm: care were not taken (Bolton v Stone) - Physical / Property o The likely seriousness of the harm (Paris v o Use the normal calculus Stepney Borough Council) - Pure Economic Loss o The burden of taking precautions to avoid o Use adjusted calculus the risk of harm (Latimer v AEC Ltd) o The social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm (E v Australian Red Cross Society (1991)) o The higher the probability/likely seriousness of harm, the required level of care is higher. o The higher the burden of precautions/higher social utility, then the required level of care is lower. Bolton v Facts: She walks past a cricket pitch and gets hit by Stone a ball, she’s suing for breach of care.
    [Show full text]