Class Notes (839,195)
Australia (1,845)
Law (441)
JSB171 (400)
Unknown (45)
Lecture

LWB147 Lecture Notes - Week 8.docx

4 Pages
75 Views

Department
Law
Course Code
JSB171
Professor
Unknown

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.
Description
LWb147 Week 8 Lecture Notes Standard of Care and Breach of Duty Negligence  There are three elements to negligence – a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damages.  Last week we looked at duty of care.  This week will be focusing on the breach of that duty of care. Element 1: Duty of Care  In Torts A we will only look at established categories of duties of care, not novel duties.  Completed the self-directed learning materials in Week 7.  You must first state the relationship, the established duty.  Then provide the authority.  Then state the scope of the duty. How do we establish Element 2: Breach of duty of care?  Ask ‘what is the standard of care?’  Ask ‘has that standard been breached?’ Role of Judge and Jury  Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448 at 454  Swain v Waverley Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4  Manley v Alexander (2005) 223 ALR  Onus is on plaintiff on balance of probabilities to establish breach Finding the appropriate standard  The standard is a question of law.  Objective test: o “the standard of reasonable foresight of the reasonable man...eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question”: Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448 at 457 per Lord MacMillan Change in Standard  In some cases the standard may be changed to accommodate the specific situation, for example in an emergency situation a person’s ‘reasonable’ conduct may differ from non-emergency situations: Broughton v Competitive Foods Australia Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 168  CLA ss 26, 27 provide immunity for people offering aid to people in an emergency providing the people are not displaying reckless disregard. Characteristics of the Defendant  Children: standard of care is typically different for children than for adults, McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199. However if a child is engaging in an adult activity (such as driving a car) then the standard will be found similar to that of an adult, Tucker v Tucker.  Disability: Carrier v Bonham [2002] 1 Qd R 474  Knowledge: Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 201 ALR 139  Possessing a skill: where a person possesses specific skills, such as medical skills, may raise the standard of care, Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 Lack of Skill  Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510.  Overturns Cook v Cook.  Cook no longer law on the issue of standard expected of an inexperienced driver. Do the following facts raise or lower the standard of care, or no change?  Reasonable person would have knowledge but the actual defendant does not? o No change to the standard of care, Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins.  Reasonable person would not have knowledge or the skill but defendant does? o Raise the standard of care, Rogers v Whitaker.  Task requires skill but defendant is inexperienced? o No change to the standard of care, Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins.  Task requires skill or knowledge that a reasonable person would not have and defendant carries out the task? o Depends on if the defendant holds themselves to possess that skill – if they do, then it would raise the standard of care. If they do not, then there would be no change, Rogers v Whitaker. Characteristics of the Plaintiff  Disability: Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367  Skills/knowledge: Bus v Sydney City Council (1989) 167 CLR 78  Children: Doubleday v Kelly [2005] NSWCA 151  Intoxication: Cole v South Tweed Heads RLFC Ltd (2004) 207 ALR 52 Breach of Standard s 9(1)(a) Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld): (1) A person does not breach a duty to take precautions against a risk of harm unless (a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought reasonably to have known) (b) The risk was not insignificant (c) In the circumstances, a reasonable person in the position of the person would have taken the precautions Common Law  Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40: a risk is foreseeable so long as it is not “farfetched or fanciful.” Determining whether standard breached 1. Was the risk foreseeable? 2. Was the risk not insignificant? 3. Would a reasonable person in the position of the defendant have taken the precautions? Foreseeable Risk  Tame v NSW (2002) 211 CLR 317  Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434  Wyong Shire Council v Shirt  Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112  Romeo v Conservation Commission (NT) (1998) 192 CLR 431  Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak Not Insignificant  Drinkwater v Howarth [2006] NSWCA 222  NSW v Fahy (2007) 232 CLR 486 Reasonable Response to the Risk  Probability that the harm would occur if care was not taken  Likely seriousness of the harm 
More Less
Unlock Document

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit