duty of care was owed

defendant breached duty of care

damage caused cannot
be too remote, and is recoverable

Was there factual foreseeability?
does the defendant know that the claimant
would suffer damage from his carelessness?

Physical proximity (time and space)

Circumstantial proximity (relationship between them)

Casual Proximity (casual connection between the
negligent act and the loss sustained)

skill and knowledge of maker of statement

do they know the party will rely on this statement?

maker of statement voluntarily undertakes /
assumes responsibility for making the
statement

career scope assumed responsibility
of professional competence to
exercise reasonable care and skill

sufficient proximity in relationship to
give rise to a duty of care

Neighbour principle

reasonable care must be taken to avoid
acts of omission someone could reasonably forsee

psychiatric illness

has close ties of love and affection
with the victim

was near to the accident

foreseeable as entrants will suffer
damage if occupiers
do not take reasonable
care to eliminate danger

floodgates

defensive behaviour

contractual matrix

likelihood of injury is high → standard of car is
higher → possibility of harm is highly foreseeable

more serious injury → higher standard of care
→ highly hazardous in nature

did he act in accordance with
such a practice?

courts will decide on what the expected care is
based on the evidence of experts within the same
or similar profession

assessment of risks and benefits
weighed by the experts in forming their
opinions

in the rare case where professional
opinions is not capable of withstanding
logical analysis → judge is entitled
to hold the body of opinion as not reasonable

burden of proof on plaintiff
difficulties in adducing direct
evidence of the negligent
act or omission

D must have been in control of
the situating or thing which resulted
in the accident

The accident would not have
happened in the ordinary course of things
if there had been proper care

The cause of the accident
must be unknown to the P

exceptions
D can displace the effect
of the doctrine by giving
evidence to show that he was
not negligent

plaintiff acted freely and
voluntarily with full knowledge
of the nature and extent of the
risks of the defendant's negligence

UCTA provision → person 's agreement and
awareness of term or notice to exclude liability

no action ought to be
founded on a wicked act

if ___ had not been negligent, __
would not have suffered from the harm.

if "But for" test does not succeed,
determine if there was material contribution
to the risks of the damage

loss has to be
reasonably foreseeable

Egg Shell Skull Rule
Defendent has to take Plaintiff as he is with existing
predispositions / weakness, and has to accept that
physical weakness exacerbated his injury

• he has to be liable to the full extent of his injury

did the plaintiff take reasonable steps
to mitigate his losses?

loss is recoverable if victim has taken steps
to mitigate, but still incurred greater loss
than if no steps have been taken at all

employer employee relationship
is the worker sufficiently integrated
into the company / degree and extent of
control the employer has over employee

if the worker that committed is an
independent contractor, defendant is not
vicariously liable

effective compensation
of the victim

deterrence of future harm
by encouraging the employer
to take steps to reduce the risk
of similar harm in the future

The extent to which the wrongful
act may have furthered
the employer's aims