LAW 1507 Study Guide - Final Guide: Nervous Shock In English Law, Gett
23 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
*Duty stage is all about the person to person establishment. Breach stage is all about the
event. Omission is under breach
Establish duty of care
• Teacher to student
• Employer and employee
• Driver to passenger
Cases
Barnett v Chealsea Hospital Maageet = If the aser is es the plaitiff ould of got
hurt/ injured wither or not the defendant acted poorly then although there is negligence
and clear breach of duty the action fails and there is no liability. (The negligence of the
defendant had placed the plaintiff in a position of no greater risk then she was already in).
Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537=
D’Orta Ekeaike Vitoria Legal Aid 5 CLR , =MHugh J said Reasosale
foreseeability of physical harm is generally enough to impose duty of care on a person who
knows or ought to reasonably foresee that physical harm is a likely result of his/ her
conduct. Liability will arise when the duty is breached and where there is a causal
relationship between the breach and the harm.
Donoughe v Stevenson [1932] ac 562, at 618
Rodgers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479= Practitioner failing to disclose risks of treatment
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549 per Deane= Wife affected by husband who is hurt
because of negligence of D who hit hi o his otorle. While’s the ife as’t i
phsial proiit that does’t atter eause of the relatioship etee the ife ad
husband.
Definition of actionable nervous shock from this case= sudden sensory perception, that is by
seeing, hearing or touching, of a person, thing or event, which is so distressing that the
pereptio of the pheoeo affrots or isults the plaitiff’s id ad auses a
recognisable psychiatric condition. – Per Brennan J
Chapmen v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112= Mr C was driving in poor weather condition and
crashed into car. A doctor came ot help him and got hit by another car and died. Mr H who
killed doctor said I take responsibility, but C is involved too, C caused the incident and I
could not of foreseen the incident. Judge said you do not need to foresee the sequence of
what would of happened in the event, but that the harm is possible.
You can foresee that as a driver you owe a duty of care. The precise sequence of event need
not be foreseen, only that some harm may occur.
Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423= They were swimming in a swimming
whole, he dived in and hurt his head. He should of foreseen the rock, but he said there
should have been a sign. The company owe a duty of care because they encouraged people
to come by adding a changing room etc. Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaurdon JJ
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
