DOCSLIB.ORG

WS2 Negligence (Duty and Breach)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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). Exceptions: • Where the police have assumed responsibility for someone or someone has been entrusted to their care, the police owe a duty of care to that person (Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester – suicidal prisoner, taken into police custody) In addition, the police may owe a duty of care: • to take action with reasonable care (Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire) • to keep the ID of informants safe (Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police) 2. NOVEL DUTY SITUATIONS (a) Starting point: Donoghue v Stevenson wide rule (AKA the neighbour principle): ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’. (b) Explain how Donoghue v Stevenson ratio was redefined in Caparo Industries v Dickman and apply the three-part test for whether a duty of care is owed: (i) Is it REASONABLY FORESEEABLE that the Defendant’s actions will affect this particular Claimant? (ii) Is there sufficient PROXIMITY OF RELATIONSHIP between the Claimant and the Defendant? (iii) Is it FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE to impose a duty? (iv) E.g. it may not be fair if the Defendant is a non-profit organisation/acting in a quasi- public capacity (Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine) Omissions: Is there a duty to act positively? General rule - Stovin v Wise: There is no liability for pure omissions, and you do not owe a duty to the world for doing nothing to prevent harm. This rule applies if you decide to act despite no duty to do so, even if you act carelessly – UNLESS you make matters worse (East Suffolk Rivers v Kent) Exception: Home Office v Dorset Yacht: there is a duty to act positively in cases where a person has a special relationship of control over another (Smith v Littlewoods – but this duty does not extend to cover actions of third parties who are OUTSIDE the Defendant’s control) COPYRIGHT YOURGDL 2014 YOURGDL.CO.UK TORT LAW 223 STEP 3: Consider whether there has been a BREACH of this duty of care: Apply 2 stage test 1. How OUGHT the Defendant have behaved? (identify the standard of care expected in the circumstances; a question of law) (a) General standard: standard of the REASONABLE PERSON (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). (i) This is an objective test (Glasgow Corporation v Muir) (b) Where the Defendant is a PROFESSIONAL: the standards of the Defendant’s profession/a reasonably competent professional in the circumstances (Bolam v Friern Hospital). (i) The courts will consider compliance with common practice in the relevant profession as strong evidence that the Defendant is not negligent (Bolam). BUT – (ii) The final decision whether a skilled Defendant’s behaviour is reasonable is the courts (Bolitho v City and Hackney) (iii) Common practice won’t necessarily justify the taking of risks, as the courts can reject ‘expert evidence’ and condemn commonly accepted practice as negligent (Re Herald of Free Enterprise) (c) Where the Defendant is INEXPERIENCED: There is no allowance for inexperience (Nettleship v Weston) (i) E.g. car drivers must meet standard of a reasonably competent driver, even if learners (Nettleship). Exception: where the Defendant suffers from an unexpected disability (Mansfield v Weetabix) (ii) Rule also applies in cases of professional inexperience (Wilsher v Essex Health Board) (iii) Rule applies in cases for home DIY (Wells v Cooper) (d) Where the Defendant is a CHILD: Reasonable child of the Defendant’s age (Mullin v Richards) 2. How DID the Defendant behave? (identify whether the Defendant fell below the relevant standard of care; a question of fact). Consider the following factors in deciding whether there has been a breach: (a) Bolton v Stone: if the RISK OF HARM is particularly small, and neglect is reasonable, it is justifiable not to take steps to mitigate But – if the risk of harm is HIGH, one must take such steps (Miller v Jackson) (b) Paris v Stepney: If there is a risk of VERY SERIOUS HARM, one must take appropriate steps to mitigate (c) Latimer v AEC: consider the COST AND PRACTICABILITY of solutions. If taking precautions would have been impracticable and incurred great expense, this may excuse the Defendant for not doing so, provided the risk of harm is small (d) Watt v Hertfordshire :CC If the Defendant’s actions are in the PUBLIC INTEREST/have substantial social utility, this may justify the Defendant taking greater risks (e) Fardon v Harcourt Rivington: There is no duty on the Defendant to protect against ‘fantastic’ possibilities 224 TORT LAW COPYRIGHT YOURGDL 2014 YOURGDL.CO.UK (f) Waugh v James K Allen: the Defendant is not liable if his actions were due to a sudden incapacity (g) Scott v London & St Katherine Docks: Res ipsa loquitor – the Defendant may be liable even if there is no conclusive proof of blame (in limited situations only) (h) Civil Evidence Act 1968, s.11: If guilty in criminal proceedings, the Defendant is also presumed liable in tort (i) Roe v Ministry of Health: the Defendant’s conduct should be considered in relation to the state of knowledge at the time of the event only For Causation (STEP 4) and Defences (STEP 5), see WS3 Negligence (Causation and Defences) COPYRIGHT YOURGDL 2014 YOURGDL.CO.UK TORT LAW 225.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Update on Breach of Duty of Care at Common Law in the Post-Enterprise Act Era
    A fine line between genius and insanity An update on breach of duty of care at common law in the post-Enterprise Act era Steve Laing, Advocate & Gavin Thornley, Advocate 1. Breach of duty of care prior to treatment in medical negligence cases Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 • Claimant suffered a head injury • Attended A&E Department - busy night • Receptionist told him he’d be seen in 4-5 hours (average waiting time for treatment) • Should have told him that triage nurse would see him within 30 minutes Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 Left hospital after 19 minutes without treatment and without telling any member of staff Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 • Had he realised that he would be seen by a triage nurse, he would have stayed • Condition deteriorated at home • Suffered a left hemiplegia, with long term problems • Would have been prevented had he received prompt treatment Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 • Left after 19 minutes • Clinical guidelines - head injury patient should be assessed by a clinician within 15 minutes of arrival • Experts accepted that 30 minutes would also be appropriate on busy night • Court of Appeal held that no breach of duty of care by failure to examine him within 15 or 19 minutes on a busy night in A&E when his presentation on arrival didn’t merit priority triage Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 Advanced a case - breach of duty as failure of A&E receptionist
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Tort Law, Fourth Edition
    PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW Fourth Edition CP Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD PRINCIPLES OF LAW SERIES PROFESSOR PAUL DOBSON Visiting Professor at Anglia Polytechnic University PROFESSOR NIGEL GRAVELLS Professor of English Law, Nottingham University PROFESSOR PHILLIP KENNY Professor and Head of the Law School, Northumbria University PROFESSOR RICHARD KIDNER Professor at the Law Department, University of Wales, Aberystwyth In order to ensure that the material presented by each title maintains the necessary balance between thoroughness in content and accessibility in arrangement, each title in the series has been read and approved by an independent specialist under the aegis of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board oversees the development of the series as a whole, ensuring a conformity in all these vital aspects. PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW Fourth Edition Vivienne Harpwood, LLB, Barrister Reader in Law, Cardiff Law School CCPP Cavendish PublishingCavendish PublishingLimited Limited London • Sydney Fourth edition first published in Great Britain 2000 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.cavendishpublishing.com © Harpwood, V2000 First edition 1993 Second edition 1996 Third edition 1997 Fourth edition 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK, without the permission in writing of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Darnley V Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50
    This is a repository copy of The Impatient Patient and the Unreceptive Receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/141880/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Purshouse, C (2018) The Impatient Patient and the Unreceptive Receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50. Medical Law Review. ISSN 1464- 3790 https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwy042 © The Author(s) 2018. This is an author produced version of a paper published in Medical Law Review. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ THE IMPATIENT PATIENT AND THE UNRECEPTIVE RECEPTIONIST: DARNLEY v CROYDON HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST [2018] UKSC 50. Craig Purshouse, School of Law, University of Leeds, Liberty Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT. [email protected] I would like to thank Emma Cave, Sarah Devaney and Rob Heywood for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellants) V the Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another (Respondents
    Hilary Term [2015] UKSC 2 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 981 JUDGMENT Michael and others (FC) (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another (Respondents) before Lord Neuberger, President Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Reed Lord Toulson Lord Hodge JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 28 January 2015 Heard on 28 and 29 July 2014 Appellants Respondents Nicholas Bowen QC Lord Pannick QC Duncan Fairgrieve Jeremy Johnson QC Jude Bunting (Instructed by Martyn (Instructed by South Prowel Solicitors) Wales and Gwent Police Joint Legal Services) Interveners Interveners (1) Refuge Karon Monaghan QC (2) Liberty Rajeev Thacker (Instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors) Intervener Intervener Cymorth i Ferched Cymru Caoilfhionn Gallagher (Welsh Women’s Aid) Conor McCarthy (Instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors) LORD TOULSON: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge agree) Introduction 1. This appeal arises from the tragic murder of Joanna Michael by a former partner, which might have been prevented if the police had responded promptly to a 999 call made by Ms Michael. As I explain below, two police forces were involved, Gwent Police and South Wales Police, and there was a lack of effective liaison between them. 2. The claimants in the action are Ms Michael’s parents and her two young children. The defendants are the Chief Constables of Gwent Police and the South Wales Police. The claim is brought for damages for negligence at common law and under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1934 (which I will refer to as the common law or negligence claim), and for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of the defendants’ duties as public authorities to protect Ms Michael’s right to life under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which I will refer to as the human rights or article 2 claim).
    [Show full text]
  • I: Negligence: Duty of Care
    © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 0 The Barrie Guide to Tort 2020 Volume One Barrie Goldstone Head of the School of Law London Metropolitan University © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 1 CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION TO TORT 1 DICTIONARY DEFINITION 2 TYPES OF TORT 3 THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW OF TORT 4 TYPES OF TORTIOUS DAMAGES PART 2: THE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE 5 THE THREE STAGES PART 3: THE DUTY OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE 6 THE GENESIS OF NEGLIGENCE: Heaven v. Pender 7 THE NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE: Donoghue v. Stevenson 8 CONFIRMING THE TEST IN DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 9 EXTENDING THE DUTY OF CARE: Denning and Co. 10 THE POLICY ELEMENTS: McLoughlin v. O’Brian 11 THE HIGH-WATER MARK: Junior Books v. Veitchi Co. Ltd. 12 THE RETREAT FROM ANNS v. MERTON: Lord Keith and Co. 13 REINTERPRETING ANNS v. MERTON 14 ISOLATING PROXIMITY: Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 15 THE TRIPARTITE TEST: Caparo v. Dickman PART 4: THE DRIVE OF PUBLIC POLICY IN DUTY OF CARE 16 THE DRIVE OF POLICY: Practical Solutions 17 ACTS AND OMISSIONS 18 THE EMERGENCY SERVICES: Duty of Care and Omissions 19 THE EMERGENCY SERVICES: Duty of Care and Commissions 20 PUBLIC POLICY AND THE ARMED FORCES 21 PUBLIC POLICY AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES 22 THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN 23 THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF CHILDREN 24 A DUTY TO ADOPTIVE PARENTS? 25 PUBLIC POLICY AND WRONGFUL BIRTH 26 BARRISTERS’ IMMUNITY © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 2 PART 5: DUTY OF CARE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 27 POLICY, ARTICLE 6 AND STRIKING OUT ACTIONS 28 THE OSMAN CASE 29 THE CHILD ABUSE CASES 30 ARTICLES 2 AND 3: Police
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Final Torts Exam Notes 70311 Gabriella Dunworth 99134951
    FINAL TORTS EXAM NOTES 70311 GABRIELLA DUNWORTH 99134951 Table of Contents DUTY OF CARE ................................................................................................................... 2 Step 1: Establish whether established or non-established DOC ...................................... 2 ESTABLISHED DOC ...................................................................................................................... 3 NOVEL CASE/DOCs ..................................................................................................................... 4 Unforeseeable plaintiffs (where relevant) – NO DOC .................................................................. 8 KEY CASES .................................................................................................................................. 8 CATEGORIES OF DUTIES OF CARE ..................................................................................... 12 Category 1: Atypical plaintiffs ................................................................................................... 12 Vulnerable plaintiffs are not automatically rendered atypical ...................................... 12 Category 2: The Unborn Child ................................................................................................... 13 WRONGFUL BIRTH ....................................................................................................................... 14 WRONGFUL LIFE .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State Liability in South Africa: a Constitutional Remix
    State Liability in South Africa: A Constitutional Remix François du Bois* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 139 II. THE CONTRAST ILLUSTRATED ......................................................... 141 A. The Cases.......................................................................... 141 B. The Context ...................................................................... 145 III. ENGLAND .......................................................................................... 147 A. The Assimilation of Private and Public Liability ............. 147 B. The Impact of Human Rights Law ................................... 151 IV. SOUTH AFRICA ................................................................................. 158 A. Reception of English Law and the Evolution of the Mixture ............................................................................. 158 B. The Impact of Constitutional Rights ................................ 166 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 172 I. INTRODUCTION No area of South African law has been left unaffected by the post- apartheid constitutional revolution.1 Tort liability, which has long been a crucial mechanism for ensuring that government, its officials and institutions, do not escape responsibility when they violate the rights of individuals, was always likely to be at the vanguard of these changes.2 Over the past fifteen years, South African law has loosened its
    [Show full text]
  • FRONT COVER JD V East Berkshire
    HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2004–05 [2005] UKHL 23 on appeal from: [2003] EWCA Civ 1151 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE JD (FC) (Appellant) v. East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others (Respondents) and two other actions (FC) ON THURSDAY 21 APRIL 2005 The Appellate Committee comprised: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE JD (FC) (Appellant) v. East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others (Respondents) and two other actions (FC) [2005] UKHL 23 LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The question in this appeal is whether the parent of a minor child falsely and negligently said to have abused or harmed the child may recover common law damages for negligence against a doctor or social worker who, discharging professional functions, has made the false and negligent statement, if the suffering of psychiatric injury by the parent was a foreseeable result of making it and such injury has in fact been suffered by the parent. 2. On conventional analysis the answer to that question turns on whether the doctor or social worker owed any duty of care towards the parent, and the answer to that question essentially depends on whether, applying the familiar test laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, 618, “the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other”.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Negligence Update
    f Clinical Negligence Update Nigel Poole QC 1. Judgecraft 1.1. Not a “details man”. 1.1.1. Barnett v Medway NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 235 [Case 21]. 1.1.2. Difficult expert evidence was considered but not resolved by the trial judge who ultimately decided the case for the defendant on the burden of proof – the claimant had failed to prove his case to the requisite standard because the court could not resolve a key factual issue. 1.1.3. The Court of Appeal considered Stephens v Cannon [2005] EWCA Civ 222 and Verlander v Devon Waste Management [2007] EWCA Civ 835 in which Auld LJ held: When this court in Stephens v Cannon used the word "exceptional" as a seeming qualification for resort by a tribunal to the burden of proof, it meant no more than that such resort is only necessary where on the available evidence, conflicting and/or uncertain and/or falling short of proof, there is nothing left but to conclude that the claimant has not proved his case. The burden of proof remains part of our law and practice -- and a respectable and useful part at that - - where a tribunal cannot on the state of the evidence before it rationally decide one way or the other. In this case the Recorder has shown, in my view, in his general observations on the unsatisfactory nature of the important parts of the evidence on each side going to the central issue, particularly that of Mr Verlander, that he had considered carefully whether there was evidence on which he could rationally decide one way or the other." 1.1.4.
    [Show full text]
  • THE AVMA LEGAL UPDATE JUNE 2016 – JUNE 2017 KATIE GOLLOP QC SEBASTIAN NAUGHTON FRANCES Mcclenaghan HERE's a THOUGHT
    THE AVMA LEGAL UPDATE JUNE 2016 – JUNE 2017 KATIE GOLLOP QC SEBASTIAN NAUGHTON FRANCES McCLENAGHAN WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO THE MEDICAL LAW REPORTS HERE’S A THOUGHT: “…I recognise that Mr. Carder has been awarded a sum which is small when compared with the costs of this litigation. That is regrettable. But litigation of this kind is often necessarily factually complex. Defendants faced with claims whose costs are likely to be out of proportion to the damages likely to be awarded after a trial should try to settle them early.”1 1 This is Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, adding a postscript to his decision (in July 2016) in Carder v The University of Exeter where the Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendant’s appeal against the liability finding pursuant to which the 87 year old Mr. Carder had been awarded £1,552.50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 BREACH OF DUTY IS THERE A DUTY OF CARE? Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 151 Claim fails CA FINDS by a majority (Jackson and Sales LLJ, McCombe LJ dissenting): no general duty owed by A&E receptionists arising out of advice about waiting times given to patients waiting to be seen. Claimant (“C”) suffered a head injury. When he attended A&E the receptionist told him that he would be seen in 4-5 hours. That was untrue. The accurate information was that because he had a head injury, he would be seen by a triage nurse within 30 minutes. He left the hospital after 19 minutes before being seen.
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]