LAW 1507 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Hospital Management Committee, Nervous Shock In English Law, William Blackstone
23 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Tort Negligence Exam Hana Ali (a1742062)
Word count= 1499
Dan v Ben/ Arial
Negligence (N) ~ possible physical harm (PPH)
Dan suffered minor physical harm after the jetty collapsed and is claiming this is due to Ben
ad Arial’s the tis negligence. The issue is whether or not the twin’s negligence caused
the plaintiff’s injury. Negligee eas failure to eerise reasoale are ad skill, Civil
Liability Act 1936 (SA) (CLA). To establish negligence,
- There must be a duty of care owed to the plaintiff (Donoughue v Stevenson [1932]
AC 562),
- The breach must cause the plaintiff damage of a legally recognised kind (Blyth v
Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 156 ER 1047),
- And that damage must not be too remote (causation) (March v Stramare (1991) 171
CLR 506).
Duty- It is considered that the twins owed Dan a duty of care as harm was reasonably
foreseeable (Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537). The fact that Corinna, a structural engineer,
cautioned Ben means they cannot reasonably claim unawareness about the risk of the
jett’s liits. The twins are occupiers of the premises and as they invited Dan onto their
premises, they have a prima facie duty of care (Neindorf v Jankovic [2005] HCA 75; 222 ALR
631; 80 ALJR 341).
Breach- A oupier is defied i s 9 as a perso i oupatio or otrol of the
preises, therefore they are occupiers. Oupier’s dut of are uder s of the CLA, is
deteried i aordae ith the priipals of the la of egligee.
Omission-The twins failed to protect Dan by failing to meet the standard of care as they did
ot hire to seurit guards to esure the jett’s limits were not exceeded. A reasonable
person in the twin’s irustae should hae taken further steps to ensure their property
was safe.
Causation- It was established in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management
Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 that the plaintiff has to prove that there would be no harm, if
the negligent act did not occur. Be’s ijuries ould ot hae ourred in the absence of the
defedat’s breach, and the damage was easily foreseeable. Therefore, there is a casual link
between the breach and negligence.
Concerning the matter of facts, there is a likelihood of a successful claim.
Dan v Corinna
N ~ PPH
A possible claim for negligence is been sought against Corinna.
Duty-Corinna has meet s 40 (a) (CLA) as she acted in a way expected of a professional
engineer and in the, releat irustaes at the date of the alleged egligee ad ot a
later date s . “he stated the risks of the jett. As a structural engineer that was all she
was required to do. Her job does not require her to implement further steps to protect Dan.
Therefore, no duty is owed, and Dan is unlikely to succussed in this claim.
Dan v Dr Ego
N ~ PPH
The issue is whether it was negligent of Dr Ego who prescribed Dan drugs, which were the
reason for his allergic reaction. The relevant law is negligence, the elements as stated (in the
twin’s situatio are satisfied.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
