Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Tort of Negligence (X breaches the duty of care (in the circumstances, a…

- - - - 1.Bolton v Stone (cricket ground ball injury to neighbour)
        2.Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (cricket batsman eye injury) - obviousness of risk
    - - Paris v Stepney Borough Council (Injury to worksman who was visually impaired) - higher standard of care
    - - Latimer v AEC Ltd (factory shutdown - too expensive)
    - - 1.Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (fireman injury) - the risks that would normally be faced by a fireman and not unduly great given the emergency situation.
        2.
      - Lower standard of care
        
        status as a minor
        
        McHale Vs Watson (12 year old child)
        
        their inexperience
        
        1.Cook v Cook
        2.Imbree v McNeilly
      - Higher standard of care
        
        Kondis v State Transport Authority
- - - - Lord Atkin's Neighbour Principle
        
        According to Lord Atkins’s ‘neighbour principle’, whatever a person is doing, they owe a duty of care to those people they can reasonably foresee as likely to be affected by their conduct.
      - 1.Donoghue v Stevenson (snail in giner beer)
        
        Bourhill v Young(motorcyclist and plantiff standing 10 metres away)
        
        Chapman v Hearse(motor vehicle accident and death of passerby who helped)
      - show that at the time of the incident it was reasonably forseeable that the defendants conduct could cause harm to someone in the plantiff's position
    - - The plaintiff must also show that the salient features of the case are consistent with the existence of a duty of care. This means that the court will consider the relationship between the parties and other features of the case and then compare those features with the salient (i.e. relevant) features of other cases where a duty of care has been found to exist.
      - Sullivan v Moody ( child abuse and the doctor , community welfare vs father)
        
        Tame v New south wales ( death of son - defendant has assumed responsiblty for the plantiff)