Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

LAW OF TORTS: Negligence, Liability for Negligent acts - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Physical harm
      - Economic loss
      - Psychological harm
- - - - Reasonable foreseeability of harm" test
        
        Must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your "neighbour"
      - Neighbour/proximity test
        
        Those who are so closely and directly affected by the defendants act that the defendant should have foreseen the consequences to the plaintiff
    - - Physical harm - injury, property damage
      - occupiers of premises owe a duty of care to those who lawfully enter
        
        Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna
      - Legal tests of Reasonable foreseeability of harm and proximity test
      - Manufacturers ow duty of care to consumers
        
        Donoghue v Stevenson
    - - Reasonable foreseeability
        
        Take into account
        
        Relationship between parties
        
        P's physcial and temporal proximity to the event that causes the mental harm
        
        What the expected response of a person of normal fortitude
      - Pure mental harm - mental harm by itself (not associated with physical harm)
        
        Annetts v Australian Stations
    - - General principle: no liability for omission or for failing to act except where there is a positive duty to act
        
        e.g. doctor and patient Rodgers v Whitaker
    - - Pure economic loss is financial loss that is not a result of injury or damage to property
      - Criteria
        
        Reasonable foreseeability
        
        Indeterminacy of liability
        
        Individual autonomy
        
        Vulnerable to risk
        
        Defendants knowledge of the risk and its magnitude
        
        Perre v Apand
  - - - Risk was foreseeable
      - Risk is not insignificant
        
        includes risks that are far-fetched or fanciful s 48 (3)
      - A reasonable person in defendants position would gave taken precautions in the circumstances
    - - 4 Factors set out in 48(2) of Wrongs Act (balancing test)
        
        Probability of the risk of harm/loss
        
        Bolton v Stone
        
        no breach, very unlikely
        
        RTA v Dederer
        
        no breach, very low probability
        
        Lower probability, lower precautions
        
        2. Gravity of the harm/seriousness of consequences if risk happens
        
        More serious risk, greater need for precautions
        
        Paris v Stepney Brorough Council
        
        breach, harm caused him to go blind
        
        3. Burden on D of eliminating the risk
        
        Easier to eliminate risk, less likely lack of precautions is justifiable
        
        Think of cost, inconvenience and difficulty
        
        Whitton v Dexus Funds Management
        
        significant and costly burden
        
        Graham v Barclay Oysters
        
        Unreasonably high burden
        
        Woods v Multi-Sport Holding
        
        No negligence
        
        4. Social Utility of D's conduct
        
        High social value, we forgive the breach
        
        Watt v Hertfordshire
        
        Saving a life outweighed need to take precaution
        
        Wilson v Nilepac
        
        No social utility
  - - - Causation
        
        Negligence was a "necessary condition" of the occurrence of harm Wrongs Act s 1(1)(a)
        
        Did the breach cause the loss
        
        But for the breach, loss or damage would not have occured
        
        Strong v Woolworths
        
        Breach caused loss
        
        March v Stramare
        
        Contributory negligence
      - Remoteness
        
        Is it appropriate for the scope of defendants liability to extend to the loss, damage or injury s 51(1)9b) Wrongs Act
        
        Is the loss reasonably foreseeable?
        
        Too remote, not recoverable
        
        Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock
        
        Damage to was not reasonably foreseeable
  - - - Apportions loss and reduces damages accordingly
      - Plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of own safety
      - Marche v Stramare
    - - Complete defence
      - A person cannot complain of damage which results from a risk which was accepted Wrongs Act s 54
      - If obvious risk, presumption of awareness, Plaintiff must show they weren't aware