matter of fact A Breach of Duty: Identify the Risks
|
|
- Adele Stevens
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Table of Contents Breach of Duty:... 2 Inherent Risk... 4 Obvious Risk... 4 Causation... 4 Remoteness... 6 Defences to Negligence... 6 Volens Contributory negligence Unlawful conduct Statute of Limitation Dangerous Recreational Activity... 9 Vicarious Liability Non-Delegable Duty Proportionate Liability Damages
2 o The legal burden of proving negligence always rests with the plaintiff, on the balance of probabilities [CLA s 5E] o Whether the standard has been breached is a matter of fact for the tribunal of fact (jury or judge without jury) A Breach of Duty: Identify the Risks CLA s 5B(1): Whether a reasonable man in the defendant s position would have foreseen that his conduct involved a risk of injury to the plaintiff or to a class of persons including the plaintiff o In the context of CLA, a risk is foreseeable if it is a risk which the defendant either knew or ought to have known This objective test sets a Standard of Care: who is a reasonable person? o Age children McHale v Watson (boy throws metal hits girl s eye) Standard was that of a 12 year old boy o Mental Illness and disability Carrier v Bonham (psychiatric patient walked in front of bus) defendant s mental condition had no effect on the standard of care owed by him to the plaintiff and must be judged by the standard of ordinary and reasonable person. o Lack of Skill Learners Imbree v McNeilly (inexperienced, unlicensed 16 yo drove 4WD station wagon) Standard of care is objective standard of an ordinary driver o Professionals/ Special Skill [CLA s 50] Rogers v Whitaker (ophthalmic surgeon blinded patient in the good eye after operating on the other) standard of reasonable care and skill required is that of the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that special skill The Bolam principle (Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital) ú Law imposes the duty of care: but the standard of care is a matter of medical judgment This standard is applied to architects, solicitors, accountants and insurance brokers (cases found on p. 453) Risk was not insignificant o Not far-fetched or fanciful (Wyong Shire v Shirt) o not insignificant à CLA s 5B(1)(b) The Wagon Mound (No 2): even if foreseeable risk is insubstantial (small) the defendant will be held negligent if, but only if, the risk was real rather than 2
3 farfetched or fantastic and the defendant had no valid reason for failing to take steps to eliminate it Whether defendant did what a reasonable person would do in the position? (Answer this question by applying the Calculus of Negligence Romeo & CLA s 5B(2) must not be applied retrospectively (Vairy)) o Perception of a reasonable man s response calls for a consideration of: Gravity of resulting injury (Paris v Stepney) Degree of probability of its occurrence (RTA signs on bridge/ Romeo (cliff)/ Bolton v Stone foreseeable, not probable) Burden of taking adequate precautions (Woods cricket / Neindorf (uneven driveway)) ú expense, difficulty and inconvenience of taking alleviating action Social utility of the activity that creates a risk of harm (E v Red Cross) Any conflicting responsibilities which the defendant may have Identify possible precautions which could have been taken in response to each of the risk If no, a breach of duty is established. 3
4 The concept of inherent and obvious risk will trigger reduce standard of care: Inherent Risk Defendant not liable for materialization of an inherent risk unless there is a duty to warn of that risk (CLA: s 5I(1)) Inherent risk is a risk of something occurring that cannot be avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and skill (NSW: CLA s 5I(2) & Rootes v Shelton (1967) (water skiing has inherent risk)) By exposing oneself to a condition or activity involving an inherent danger one has whereby become subject to the possibility of the danger crystallizing Mulligan v Coffs Harbour CC (2005) inherent risk does not change even if warning occurs (cf. E v Red Cross) Neinford v Junkovic (Kirby) although risk was obvious, the invitation onto the premises knowing the presence of danger constitutes a breach of duty as the appellant did not take reasonable precaution in preventing harm Obvious Risk Definition of Obvious risk (CLA s 5F) There is no duty to warn of obvious risk (CLA s 5H) Injured person presumed to be aware of obvious risk unless the plaintiff proves otherwise on the balance of probabilities (CLA s 5G) No liability arise for the materialisation of an obvious risk arising from a dangerous recreational activity (NSW CLA s 5F) [SEE DEFENCES] This is confined to negligence, so does not prevent liability arising, for example, from breach of statutory duty. Relevant to: Breach (although not stated in CLA) Contributory negligence DRA Defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) Causation To determine whether causation exists, we must consider each of the risk from the breach But for the presence of the risk which was not mitigated because of the breach of duty, an injury would not have occurred but for the presence of the risks A. But for test: CLA 5D(1)(a) (factual causation) a. The harm would not have occurred but for the defendant s negligence (does not need to be sole cause) 4
5 B. Tempered by common sense (multiple sufficient cause/ successive causes NSW: s 5D(2) involves making value judgments and policy considerations) a. March v E & M Stramare Ltd (1991) (Mason J): causation should be considered from common sense so that values or policies do not have to be considered b. Baker v Willoughby (successive causes: leg injured, later amputated) i. Amputation did not decrease suffering: first tortfeasor still liable for damage to leg in accident c. Jobling v Associated Dairies (successive causes: leg amputated) OVERTURNS BAKER i. ordinary vicissitudes of life such as illnesses should be contemplated upon determining damages d. CLA 5D(2): whether or why i. Failure to warn CLA s 5D(3) (risk eventuated and caused physical harm) a. (a) Subjective test (Rosenberg) AND b. Pro-spective test C. Novus actus interveniens a. A wrongful act/omission cannot be held to have been as a cause of subsequent harm unless that harm would not have occurred but for the wrongful act NO Novus actus interveniens: b. Chapman v Hearse (1961) i. defendant s wrongful conduct has generated the very risk of injury resulting from the negligence of the plaintiff and that injury occurs in the ordinary course of things c. Haber v Walker (husband suicide after accident, wife v driver) To sever the causal connexion and establish that a novus actus interveniens occurred, the intervening act must be: a. A voluntary act (not suicide, result of depression) b. A casually independent event along with the wrongful act/omission that is not extremely unlikely to be called a coincidence (If the wrongdoer can realise that the intervening act might occur, then it was not unlikely to be a coincidence à not a fully voluntary act à not a novus actus) Mahony v Kruschich Demolitions (1985) Negligence in the administration of the treatment is not a novus actus Possible Conclusion: Respondent s negligence is a continuing cause of accident. The chain of causation was not broken by a novus actus, nor was it terminated because the risk of injury was plainly foreseeable 5
SIMPLE'APPLICATION'TESTS' 39'
BREACH' WHO'IS'THE'REASONABLE'PERSON' FORESEEABILITY' CAUSATION'(CLA)' CAUSATION'(COMMON'LAW)' NOVUS'ACTUS' REMOTENESS' DEFENCES'TO'NEGLIGENCE' VICARIOUS'LIABILITY' NON?DELEGABLE'DUTY' BREACH'OF'STATUTORY'DUTY'
More informationSIMPLE'APPLICATION'TESTS' 39'
BREACH' WHO'IS'THE'REASONABLE'PERSON' FORESEEABILITY' CAUSATION'(CLA)' CAUSATION'(COMMON'LAW)' NOVUS'ACTUS' REMOTENESS' DEFENCES'TO'NEGLIGENCE' VICARIOUS'LIABILITY' NON?DELEGABLE'DUTY' BREACH'OF'STATUTORY'DUTY'
More informationJURD7161/LAWS1061 Torts
JURD7161/LAWS1061 Torts 1 BREACH... 5 STANDARD OF CARE... 5 General... 5 Age/Children... 5 Mental illness/disability... 5 Knowledge/Skill... 5 Professionals... 5 Failure to Warn... 5 REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
More informationBREACH OF DUTY. CLA s 5C outlines some relevant principles in breach of duty:
BREACH OF DUTY Occurs when the defendant s conduct does not meet the objective standard of care of the reasonable person. A different standard of care can be applied based on age (McHale v Watson), as
More informationPRELIMINARIES 1 1. Involving public authority 1 2. Nature of harm 1 A. Bodily injury 1 B. Mental harm: psychological or psychiatric injury (WA 1958 s
PRELIMINARIES 1 1. Involving public authority 1 2. Nature of harm 1 A. Bodily injury 1 B. Mental harm: psychological or psychiatric injury (WA 1958 s 67) 1 C. Property damage 2 D. Pure economic loss 2
More informationNegligence 1. Duty of Care 2. Breach of duty of care p 718 c) p 724
Negligence 1. Duty of Care Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 - a duty of care could exist in any situation where loss, damage or injury to one party was reasonable foreseeable (foreseeable harm) - the
More informationVicarious Liability: imposed in certain relationships eg. Employee/ Employer
CONCURRENT LIABILITY: VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND INTRODUCTION TO!" NEGLIGENCE Vicarious Liability: imposed in certain relationships eg. Employee/ Employer Vicarious liability may exist if the wrongful act
More informationTorts: Exam Notes LAW5003 Trimester 1, 2016
Torts: Exam Notes LAW5003 Trimester 1, 2016 1 of 58 Trespass to the Person 4 Battery 4 Assault 6 False Imprisonment 8 Defences 10 Consent 10 Self-defence, defence of another or defence to property 11 Necessity
More informationLAWS1100 Final Exam Notes
LAWS1100 Final Exam Notes Topic 4&5: Tort Law and Business (*very important) Relevant chapter: Ch.3 Applicable law: - Law of torts law of negligence (p.74) Torts (p.70) - The word tort meaning twisted
More informationLAWS1203 Torts 1 st Semester 2007
LAWS1203 Torts 1 st Semester 2007 How to Use this Script: These sample exam answers are based on problems done in past years. Since these answers were written, the law has changed and the subject may have
More informationTORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD
SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO NELIGENCE 7 DUTY OF CARE 8 INTRODUCTION 8 ELEMENTS 10 Reasonable foreseeability of the class of plaintiffs 10 Reasonable foreseeability not alone sufficient
More informationCivil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92
New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals
More informationUNCORRECTED. Negligence and duty of care
CHAPTER 8 TOPIC 3 Negligence and duty of care CHAPTER OBJECTIVES By the end of this chapter, students should be able to: describe key terms using legal terminology, including proximity, causation, foreseeability,
More informationThis specification is for 2011 examinations
Unit 5 Title: Law of Tort Level: 3 Credit Value: 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the meaning of the term the tort of 2 Understand the tests for establishing a duty of care in cases of
More informationACCAspace ACCA F4. Provided by ACCA Research Institute. Corporate and Business Law (CL) 公司法与商法 ACCA Lecturer: Eli Qiu. ACCAspace 中国 ACCA 特许公认会计师教育平台
ACCAspace Provided by ACCA Research Institute ACCA F4 Corporate and Business Law (CL) 公司法与商法 ACCA Lecturer: Eli Qiu ACCAspace 中国 ACCA 特许公认会计师教育平台 Copyright ACCAspace.com 2 a) Explain the meaning of tort
More informationCivil Liability Act 2002
Western Australia Civil Liability Act 2002 As at 01 Jan 2013 Version 03-j0-02 Western Australia Civil Liability Act 2002 CONTENTS Part 1 Preliminary 1. Short title 2 2. Commencement 2 3. Terms used 2
More informationLWB147 Week 11 Lecture Notes Defences to Negligence
LWB147 Week 11 Lecture Notes Defences to Negligence Negligence Plaintiffs must prove on the balance of probabilities: Duty of care Breach of that duty Damage Defendants must prove on the balance of probabilities:
More informationMedical Indemnity Forum 24 th August. Tort Law Reform. Professor Loane Skene
Medical Indemnity Forum 24 th August Tort Law Reform Professor Loane Skene Until the Medical Indemnity crisis civil liability was mostly common law Claims rapidly increased in number, but even more in
More informationDUTY OF CARE. The plaintiff must firstly establish that the defendant owed hum a duty of care: this arises where:
DUTY OF CARE REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY AND SALIENT FEATURES To recover damages in negligence, a plaintiff must firstly establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care. In broad terms, a duty of care
More informationWeek 2 - Damages in Contract. The plaintiff simply needs to show that there was a breach of contract
Week 2 - Damages in Contract In order for the court to award the plaintiff compensatory damages in contract, it must find that: a) Does the plaintiff have a cause of action in contract (e.g breach of contract)?
More informationCriminal Law Exam Notes
Criminal Law Exam Notes Contents LARCENY... Error! Bookmark not defined. Actus Reus... Error! Bookmark not defined. Taking & Carrying Away... Error! Bookmark not defined. Property Capable of Being Stolen...
More informationNegligence Case Law and Notes
Negligence Case Law and Notes Subsections Significance Case Principle Established Duty of Care Original Negligence case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] ac 562 The law takes no cognisance of carelessness in
More informationIn the matter between: CASE NO. 1783/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) In the matter between: CASE NO. 1783/2012 ONGEZWA MKHITHA PLAINTIFF VS ROAD ACCIDENT FUND MEC FOR HEALTH, EASTERN CAPE 1 ST DEFENDANT
More informationTORTS SPECIFIC TORTS NEGLIGENCE
TORTS A tort is a private civil wrong. It is prosecuted by the individual or entity that was wronged against the wrongdoer. One aim of tort law is to provide compensation for injuries. The goal of the
More informationCASE NOTE ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES V DEDERER *
CASE NOTE ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES V DEDERER * NEGLIGENCE AND THE EXUBERANCE OF YOUTH PAM STEWART AND GEOFF MONAHAN [This case note examines the decision of the High Court of Australia
More informationContents. Table of Statutes. Table of Secondary Legislation. Table of Cases. General Principles of Liability
Contents Table of Statutes Table of Secondary Legislation Table of Cases Chapter 1: General Principles of Liability 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Interests protected 1.3 The mental element in tort 1.3.1 Malice
More informationTwo elements:! 1. Employer/employee relationship! 2. The tortious conduct took place during the course of the employment.!
TORTS LAW EXAM NOTES [ VICARIOUS LIABILITY ] (if it applies) Imposed on certain relationships (e.g. employer/employee, principal/agent, partnerships) Policy reasons: 1. a person who employs others to advance
More informationNegligence: Approaching the duty of care
Negligence: Approaching the duty of care Introduction: Elements of negligence: - The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. - That the duty must have been breached. - That breach must have caused
More informationFalse imprisonment à Direct & intentional/negligent total restraint of the freedom of movement of P by the D without legal authority
False imprisonment à Direct & intentional/negligent total restraint of the freedom of movement of P by the D without legal authority Voluntary/positive o Same as battery (see above) Fault (intention/negligent)
More informationKEY ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF CONTRACT
This article is relevant to Paper F4 (ENG) Together, contract and the tort of negligence form syllabus area B of the Paper F4 (ENG) syllabus: the law of obligations. As this indicates, the areas have a
More informationNEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful:
NEGLIGENCE WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is unintentional harm to others as a result of an unsatisfactory degree of care. It occurs when a person NEGLECTS to do something that a reasonably prudent person
More informationHURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES
Posted on: January 1, 2011 HURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES One of the most significant challenges we face as personal injury lawyers is proving chronic pain in cases where there is no physical
More information~~~~~ Week 6. Element of a Crime
~~~~~ Week 6 Element of a Crime PHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF A CRIME (AR) Physical elements may refer to: o A specified form of conduct such as: An act; An omission; or There is a CL duty not to cause harm to
More informationTORTS LAW CASE NOTES
TORTS LAW CASE NOTES LAWSKOOL PTY LTD CONTENTS Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2002] HCA 54... 3 Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431... 9 Modbury Triangle
More informationTorts Rose Vassel 2012 TORTS LAWS1061. Rose VASSEL
TORTS LAWS1061 Rose VASSEL 1 DUTY OF CARE CATEGORIES Because negligence is an action on the case, the kind of harm is the most significant characteristic. Damage is the gist of the action and must be proved.
More informationNegligence: Elements
Negligence: Elements 1) Duty: The defendant must owe a duty to the plaintiff to avoid causing the harm that was eventually caused. 2) Breach: The defendant must have breached this duty by acting unreasonably
More informationTHE LAW PROFESSOR TORT LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #3 MODEL ANSWER
THE LAW PROFESSOR TORT LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #3 MODEL ANSWER Carol stopped her car at the entrance to her office building to get some papers from her office. She left her car unlocked and left
More informationPersonal Responsibility: Recent Developments in the New South Wales Courts
Personal Responsibility: Recent Developments in the New South Wales Courts Limitation Act Developments with the Concept of Discoverability Preamble: In late 1990s and the early years of this century the
More informationError! Bookmark not defined. Error! Bookmark not defined. Error! Bookmark not defined. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table of Contents PART 1: INTRODUCTION... 5 Introduction to the Law of Torts (CHAPTER 1):... 5 The nature of torts law:... 5 Definition of a tort:... 5 Remedies:... 5 Torts reforms:... 6 Scope of the reforms:...
More informationDoes a hospital owe a duty of care when discharging a mentally ill patient?
Does a hospital owe a duty of care when discharging a mentally ill patient? In November 2014 the High Court of Australia unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal,
More informationMontgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: Dr, No
A CONFESSION I represented the defenders in this case. I drafted the Defences in May 2006. After a Procedure Roll, a Proof that lasted 15 days, a Summar Roll that lasted 8 days and 2 days in the Supreme
More informationCivil Liability Act 1936
Version: 1.8.2017 South Australia Civil Liability Act 1936 An Act to consolidate certain Acts relating to wrongs. Contents Part 1 Preliminary 1 Short title 2 Act to bind the Crown 3 Interpretation 4 Application
More informationPublic Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the
Public Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the Northern Territory Susan Barton BALLB student, The University of Queensland Once upon a time public authorities
More informationLegal Liability. Sophie Foyston ROB
Legal Liability Sophie Foyston ROB14236233 Contents Task 1... 3 Part 1 (P1 and P2)... 3 Neighbour Principle... 3 Duty of Care... 3 Breach of Duty... 3 Damage... 4 Compensation... 4 Part 2 (M1)... 5 Part
More informationCaltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Limited v Stavar
Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Limited v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649; [2009] NSWCA 258 Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal (This case comes after Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan; Ryan v
More informationTorts Exam Notes. Topics: 1. Damages o Compensatory! Economic (pecuniary)! Non-economic (non-pecuniary) o Aggravated o Exemplary/punitive
Torts Exam Notes Topics: 1. Damages o Compensatory! Economic (pecuniary)! Non-economic (non-pecuniary) o Aggravated o Exemplary/punitive 5. Duty of Care o Reasonably foreseeable? o Established relationship
More informationDAY CAMP SUPERVISOR LIABLE FOR LOG ROLLING FATALITY IN CITY PARK
DAY CAMP SUPERVISOR LIABLE FOR LOG ROLLING FATALITY IN CITY PARK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1991 James C. Kozlowski An unscientific observation of the Glorioso decision described herein and innumerable
More informationConsent. Simon Britten. August 2016
Consent Simon Britten August 2016 Judge Cardozo 1914 every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what should be done with his body, and a surgeon who performs an operation
More informationTo begin, the behaviour and the defendant in question have to be identified as well as the offence they ve committed. This may be:
Homicide Offences To begin, the behaviour and the defendant in question have to be identified as well as the offence they ve committed. This may be: Murder or voluntary manslaughter if partial defences
More informationLaw of Tort (Paper 22, Unit 22) Syllabus - for the June and October 2009 Examinations
Outline of assessment Law of Tort (Paper 22, Unit 22) Syllabus - for the June and October 2009 Examinations Time allowed: 3 hours. Each question carries a total of 25 marks. The examination paper is divided
More informationPART 1 INTENTIONAL TORTS TO THE PERSON. Battery
PART 1 INTENTIONAL TORTS TO THE PERSON Battery (1) Direct contact (2) Physical interference with the person (3) Accompanied by fault: intentional or recklessly indifferent in bringing it about moral intent
More informationCase study OLA Why was his claim under OLA 1957 rejected? 2. What was the alternative claim? 3. What did the first court decide?
Case study OLA 1957 In Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee 2008, a man fell and was badly injured while at an indoor climbing premises. He claimed under both the OLA 1957
More informationSTANDARDISING THE STANDARD OF THE LEARNER DRIVER: IMBREE V MCNEILLY MANDY SHIRCORE 1
STANDARDISING THE STANDARD OF THE LEARNER DRIVER: IMBREE V MCNEILLY MANDY SHIRCORE 1 I INTRODUCTION More than twenty years after the High Court of Australia created an exception to the objective standard
More information1 Criminal Responsibility
1 Criminal Responsibility 1.1 Who can commit crimes? A person who is: Over the age of 18 A rational being Capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong Able to control conscious actions
More informationLAWS206 TORTS Semester Georgia Gamble
LAWS206 TORTS Semester 1 2014 Georgia Gamble 1. Week One The Nature of Tort Law 1.1 What is a tort? Rules and principles of tort law are relevant to a wide range of common phenomena as diverse as industrial
More informationMLL214 CRIMINAL LAW 2013 MICHAEL KRIEWALDT
MLL214 CRIMINAL LAW 2013 MICHAEL KRIEWALDT THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1 1. Introduction In this unit we are looking at the basic principles and underlying rationales of the substantive criminal law.
More informationIdentifying and Addressing the Limitations of Waivers and Permission Forms in a School Setting
Identifying and Addressing the Limitations of Waivers and Permission Forms in a School Setting By Robert C. McGlashan, McCague Borlack LLP Introduction It is common practice for schools to offer enhancements
More informationInsight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group
Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Issue #19 17 June 2016 Alexander House 94 Talbot Road Manchester M16 0SP T. 03300 240 711 F. 03300 240 712 www.h-f.co.uk Page 1 Welcome to this
More informationClinical negligence by Marc Cornock Senior Lecturer Faculty of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care The Open University
Clinical negligence by Marc Cornock Senior Lecturer Faculty of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care The Open University Address: Faculty of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care The Open University Horlock Building
More informationLegal Liability in Adventure Tourism
Legal Liability in Adventure Tourism Ross Cloutier Bhudak Consultants Ltd. www.bhudak.com The Legal System in Canada Common Law Records creating a foundation of cases useful as a source of common legal
More informationTORT LAW. Third Edition. Lewis N. Klar, Q.C. B.A., B.C.L., LL.M. Professor of Law University of Alberta THOMSON - ^ CARSWELL
TORT LAW Third Edition Lewis N. Klar, Q.C. B.A., B.C.L., LL.M. Professor of Law University of Alberta THOMSON - ^ CARSWELL TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Table ofcases v xix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO TORT LÄW
More informationklm Report on the Examination Law examination - June series General Certificate of Education
version 1.1 klm General Certificate of Education Law 1161 Unit 2 (LAW02) The Concept of Liability Report on the Examination 2009 examination - June series This Report on the Examination uses the new numbering
More informationTOPIC 2: LEGAL REMEDIES (DAMAGES - IN TORT AND CONTRACT)
TOPIC 2: LEGAL REMEDIES (DAMAGES - IN TORT AND CONTRACT) Damages in tort to award expectation loss Damages in contract to award for the compensation of expected benefits/disappointed expectations in both
More informationANSWER A TO QUESTION 3
Question 3 Roofer contracted with Hal to replace the roof on Hal s house. The usual practice among roofers was to place tarpaulins on the ground around the house to catch the nails and other materials
More informationLAW REVIEW JUNE 1989 PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION QUESTIONED IN EYE INJURY CASES
PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION QUESTIONED IN EYE INJURY CASES James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1989 James C. Kozlowski This month's column presents two court decisions which examine various aspects of playground
More informationCustomer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory.
Customer (C) v. Businessman (B) Customer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory. Negligence requires a Breach of a Duty that Causes Damages. A. Duty B had a duty to drive as
More informationNature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2013
13 September 2013 Ms Sue Cawcutt Research Director Health and Community Services Committee Parliament House Brisbane QLD 4000 hcsc@parliament.qld.gov.au Dear Research Director Thank you for providing Queensland
More informationINDEX. . accountants and actuaries, negligence, . but-for test, factual causation.. but for test, material contribution test, 22-23
INDEX accountants and actuaries. contract, breach of, 157. damages, assessment, 159. duties owed to third parties, 67-68. fiduciary duty, breach of, 157-159. liability, generally, 149. negligence.. duty
More informationLAW1114: CRIMINAL LAW EXAM NOTES
LAW1114: CRIMINAL LAW EXAM NOTES CONTENTS TOPIC COMMON OTHER 1 S OF A CRIME 2 NON- FATAL, NON- SEXUAL AGAINST THE PERSON 3 SEXUAL 4 HOMICIDE 5 DEFENCES AR (p3) - Positive, voluntary act (PVA) - Causation
More informationNEGLIGENCE. Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s43 Negligence means failure to exercise reasonable care.
NEGLIGENCE Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s43 Negligence means failure to exercise reasonable care. Negligence is; - The failure to do something that a reasonable person would do (omission), or - Doing something
More informationAnswer A to Question 10. To prevail under negligence, the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and
Answer A to Question 10 3) ALICE V. WALTON NEGLIGENCE damage. To prevail under negligence, the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and DUTY Under the majority Cardozo view, a duty is owed to all
More informationOCTOBER 2012 LAW REVIEW OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL
OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2012 James C. Kozlowski Under traditional principles of landowner liability for negligence, the landowner generally owes a legal
More informationContract and Tort Law for Engineers
Contract and Tort Law for Engineers Christian S. Tacit Tel: 613-599-5345 Email: ctacit@tacitlaw.com Canadian Systems of Law There are two systems of law that operate in Canada Common Law and Civil Law
More informationCambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level. Published
Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level LAW 9084/43 Paper 4 MARK SCHEME Maximum Mark: 75 Published This mark scheme is published as an aid to
More informationANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5
ANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5 Sally will bring products liability actions against Mfr. based on strict liability, negligence, intentional torts and warranty theories. Strict Products Liability A strict
More informationSKENE, L; LUNTZ, H. Effects of tort law reform on medical liability (2005) 79 Australian Law Journal
SKENE, L; LUNTZ, H. Effects of tort law reform on medical liability (2005) 79 Australian Law Journal 345-363 The Effects of Tort Law Reform on Medical Liability Loane Skene Professor of Law, University
More informationGeorge Mason University School of Recreation, Health & Tourism Court Reports American Powerlifting Association v. Cotillo (Md.
PARTICIPANT ASSUMES RISK OF INJURY INTEGRAL TO SPORT AMERICAN POWERLIFTING ASSOCIATION v. COTILLO Court of Appeals of Maryland October 16, 2007 [Note: Attached opinion of the court has been edited and
More informationDamages in Tort 6. Damages in Contract 18. Restitution 27. Rescission 32. Specific Performance 38. Account of Profits 40.
LW401 REMEDIES Damages in Tort 6 Damages in Contract 18 Restitution 27 Rescission 32 Specific Performance 38 Account of Profits 40 Injunctions 43 Mareva Orders and Anton Piller Orders 49 Rectification
More informationAnglo-American Contract and Torts. Prof. Mark P. Gergen. 11. Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause)
Anglo-American Contract and Torts Prof. Mark P. Gergen 11. Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause) 1) Duty/Injury 2) Breach 3) Factual cause 4) Legal cause/scope of liability 5) Damages Proximate cause Duty
More information9084 LAW 9084/41 Paper 41 (Law of Tort), maximum raw mark 75
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level and GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2009 question paper for the guidance of teachers 9084 LAW 9084/41
More informationTHE BUILDING CONTROL AMENDMENT REGULATIONS. Martin Waldron BL
MARTIN WALDRON BL FCIArb MSCSI MRICS Accredited Adjudicator & Mediator Law Library The Four Courts Dublin 7 +353(1)8177865 +353(86)2395167 www.waldron.ie martin@waldron.ie THE BUILDING CONTROL AMENDMENT
More informationNON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY UNDER SPANISH LAW (a comparative perspective with French and German Law)
NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY UNDER SPANISH LAW (a comparative perspective with French and German Law) UCL, March 15, 2013 Yolanda Bergel Sainz de Baranda Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 1 Non-contractual
More information3003 Negligence Law Final Exam Notes Griffith University
3003 Negligence Law Final Exam Notes Griffith University Week 4: Elements of Negligence: 1. Duty of Care 2. Breach of Duty 3. Causation 4. Defences/Damages Legislation: Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld),
More information9084 LAW. 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS Cambridge International Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2015 series 9084 LAW 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75 This mark scheme is published as an aid
More informationQuestion 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?
Question 1 Twelve-year-old Charlie was riding on his small, motorized 3-wheeled all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) in his family s large front yard. Suddenly, finding the steering wheel stuck in place, Charlie
More informationTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE. Geron Ibrahimi
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE Geron Ibrahimi ABSTRACT: In strict theory, causation (called cause in fact ) and remoteness (called cause in law ) must be dealt with as two
More informationOBVIOUS RISK & DANGEROUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY (14 November 2012)
OBVIOUS RISK & DANGEROUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY (14 November 2012) INTRODUCTION 1. This topic concerns Divisions 4 and 5, Part 1Civil Liability Act 2002 entitled respectively Assumption of Risk and Recreational
More informationLAW REVIEW JUNE 1992 RAINWATER ACCUMULATED IN CLOSED CITY POOL RAISES ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RISK
RAINWATER ACCUMULATED IN CLOSED CITY POOL RAISES ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RISK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski The March 1992 law column entitled "Swimming Pool Not 'Attractive Nuisance'
More informationNEGLIGENCE. 1. Duty 2. Breach. 3. Causation 4. (Remoteness)
1. Duty 2. Breach NEGLIGENCE 3. Causation 4. (Remoteness) ISSUE Q: Did X s negligence cause Y s damage? RULE: Negligence is concerned with carelessness. To establish the tort of negligence, P must show:
More informationClient Update June 2008
Highlights Relevance Of This Update Introduction Facts Of The Case High Court Ruling...2 The Decision Of The Court Of Appeal Foreseeability Of Damage Proximity The Class Of Persons Whose Claims Should
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Autos, Inc. manufactures a two-seater
More informationQuestion 1. On what theory or theories might damages be recovered, and what defenses might reasonably be raised in actions by:
Question 1 A state statute requires motorcyclists to wear a safety helmet while riding, and is enforced by means of citations and fines. Having mislaid his helmet, Adam jumped on his motorcycle without
More informationInsight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group
Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Issue #26 11 August 2016 Alexander House 94 Talbot Road Manchester M16 0SP T. 03300 240 711 F. 03300 240 712 www.h-f.co.uk Page 1 Welcome to
More informationTorts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES. Negligence
Torts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES Negligence 1 Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff Breach of duty Actual causation Proximate causation Damages Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
NO. VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN TIGRA WOODS PLAINTIFF AND ON-COURSE GOLF GOODS AND EQUIPMENT INC. NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM DEFENDANT This action has been started by
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Manufacturer designed and manufactured
More informationBusiness Law Tort Law Unit Textbook
Business Law Tort Law Unit Textbook Tort Law 1 UNIT OUTLINE 1. Tort Law 2. Intentional Torts A. Assault and Battery B. False Imprisonment and Arrest C. Fraud D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
More informationMotion for Summary Judgment (Judge Randy Hammock)
Motion for Summary Judgment (Judge Randy Hammock) Case Number: BC584668 Hearing Date: January 03, 2017 Dept: 93 BALBINA OLIVEROS ELIZONDO, Plaintiff, vs. ROADRUNNER AUTO SALES, Defendant. [TENTATIVE] ORDER
More informationLiability for Injuries Caused by Dogs. Jonathan Owen
Liability for Injuries Caused by Dogs Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. This article addressed the liability for injuries caused by dogs, such as when a person is bitten, or knocked over by a dog. Such cases,
More informationMock Trial Competition Case Materials 2017 Round 2
Case Materials 2017 Round 2 The Law Society of Western Australia Level 4, 160 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000 Postal: PO Box Z5345, Perth WA 6831 or DX 173 Perth Phone: (08) 9324 8600 Fax: (08) 9324
More information