LLB102 Chapter Notes - Chapter 8: The Motor, Independent Contractor, Vicarious Liability
Document Summary
Calte(cid:454) oil (cid:894)australia(cid:895) pt(cid:455) ltd v the dredge (cid:858)wille(cid:373)stad(cid:859: ide(cid:374)tifi(cid:272)atio(cid:374) a(cid:374)d state(cid:373)e(cid:374)t of (cid:862)as(cid:272)ertai(cid:374)ed (cid:272)lass(cid:863) test (cid:271)(cid:455) gi(cid:271)(cid:271)s a(cid:374)d maso(cid:374) jj. It was material but not sufficient that: some property of the plaintiff was in physical proximity to the damaged property or, the plaintiff and the person where property was injured were engaged in a common adventure. How the test was defined in christopher: to require knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of the breach i. e. : the fact that the plai(cid:374)tiff"s (cid:373)a(cid:455) ha(cid:448)e (cid:271)ee(cid:374) (cid:862)as(cid:272)ertai(cid:374)a(cid:271)le(cid:863) after the fa(cid:272)t (cid:449)as i(cid:374)suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t. Fortu(cid:374)a eafoods pt(cid:455) ltd v the hip (cid:858)e(cid:454)ter(cid:374)al wi(cid:374)d(cid:859) How the test was defined in fortuna: the test was applied less strictly. Some attempt at criticism/critique of the test: the test is not sufficient of itself to found a duty of care for pure economic loss see, e. g. fortuna seafoods which states that the test requires supplementation.
