BTC1110 Study Guide - Final Guide: Cricket Ball, Contributory Negligence
15 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Negligence
The first step is if A owes a duty of care to B?
1) The first step is to appl Lord Atkis reasoale foreseeailit of har test, where P must have avoided
acts or omissions which you ca reasonably foresee would be likely to injure
2) The question is if P eloged to the lass of people that D should hae regarded as eig at risk of eig
injured or suffering loss:
- Liits Ds legal dut to his eighor
o those ho are so losel ad diretl affeted the act that D should have foreseen the
consequences it has on P
<Physical Harm>
- Donoghue v Stevenson (351)
- Australian Safeway v Zaluzna (355)
o Established a relationship between them, which in itself, suffices to give rise to a duty on the
part of the appellant to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to the
respondent
<Mental Harm>
- Jaensch v Coffey (356)
o Damage was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant
o There was sufficient proximity (so closely and directly affected by my act)
- Tame v NSW (353)
- Annetts v Australian Stations (357)
o reasonably foreseeable that the parents would suffer psychological damage when son died because of
eploers egligee
Test of reasonable foreseeability:
a. The relationships between the parties
b. The plaintiff's physical and temporal proximity to the event that causes mental harm
c. What the expected response of a person of normal fortitude might be
Has A breached their duty of care?
Was As at or oissio egliget?
A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless:
1) Under s48(1) - The risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable
a. Under s48(1)(c) - D will only be in breach of duty for a failure to respond if the risk of harm is
ot sigifiat
2) Under 48(2) – if the risk was reasonably foreseeable, the act asks how would a reasonable person would
have responded
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
those (cid:449)ho are (cid:858)so (cid:272)losel(cid:455) a(cid:374)d dire(cid:272)tl(cid:455) affe(cid:272)ted(cid:859) (cid:271)(cid:455) the act that d should have foreseen the consequences it has on p. Jaensch v coffey (356: damage was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, there was sufficient proximity (so closely and directly affected by my act) Annetts v australian stations (357) reasonably foreseeable that the parents would suffer psychological damage when son died because of e(cid:373)plo(cid:455)er(cid:859)s (cid:374)eglige(cid:374)(cid:272)e. Test of reasonable foreseeability: the relationships between the parties, the plaintiff"s physical and temporal proximity to the event that causes mental harm, what the expected response of a person of normal fortitude might be. The probability of the occurrence of risk or injury: when a risk is small, a reasonable person can ignore it. In this section, there are 2 aspects, causation and remoteness. To prove causal connection, p must show that (cid:858)(cid:271)ut for(cid:859) the breach, the loss or damage would not have occurred.
