Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Negligence, e.g.: (after the accident. PF is still alive and taken to…

- - - - Did DF do what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances? if not, he has breached the duty of care.
      - General Knowledge - DF is expected to have this and keep up with progress in their field of work
      - Intelligence - IQ of DF is irrelevant. The standard expected is the same
      - Special Skills - "Did DF do what a reasonable man with those skills would have done?"
      - Age - " Did DF do what a reasonable child of that age would have done?"
      - General Practice - If DF did what was normally done, there may not be a breach. (e.g. Medical Negligence)
      - Emergencies - if DF did what was necessary to prevent a bigger emergency, they may not be liable
      - Plaintiff's Disabilities - if DF was aware of PF's disability, they owe a higher standard of care to PF (e.g. blindness)
      - Magnitude of Harm to Plaintiff - if the harm posed by DF to PF is graver than others, the DoC owed by DF is higher
  - - - "BUT FOR" Test
        
        basic test used to decide if PF's loss was in fact caused by DF's negligence
        
        "would the damage have happened BUT FOR the defendant's negligence?"
    - - Breaking the chain of causation:
        NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS
        
        intervening act of 3rd party - a passing car throws a cigarette butt onto PF's car, causing more damage. DF not held responsible for PF's losses.
        
        plaintiff's own conduct -DF injured PF's leg. One day, PF walked down some steep stairs with no handrail, fell and broke his ankle. DF not held liable for further injuries
        
        an act of nature -DF spilled oil on PF's farm. Lightning struck the oil, causing a fire. DF not held liable as this was an act of nature
    - - wagon mound test - DF liable for type of damage foreseeable in ALL circumstances
      - egg-shell skull rule (exception to wagon mound)
  - - - set out in Donoghue v Stevenson, the Neighbour Test is applied to establish liability on the test of pure foreseeability alone
    - - set out in Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science and Technology Agency. it answers the question "to whom is this duty owed" via the test of factual foreseeability
      - 2-Stage Test
        
        PROXIMITY
        
        focuses on the closeness of relationship between parties
        1) notional nearness
        2) physical proximity between person or property of PF/DF
        
        POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
        
        to determine whether or not the prima facie duty of care is valid. CA allows judges to express in their judgement the true premises of their decision in the light of greater moral, social, economic, administrative or philosophical public perceptions.
- - - - Spartan Steel v Martin gave rise to the principle that before PF can recover for economic losses caused by DF's negligence, they must prove that DF's act also caused them physical damage
    - - Hedley Byrne v Heller is the landmark case for situations where economic loss arises from negligent statements
        
        PF sued DF for negligent advice regarding giving credit to a particular firm (EP Co)
        DF found liable as there was a special relationship
        1) DF had special skills
        2) PF relied on those skills
        3) DF knew that the advice would be for PF
        4) PF suffered damage due to relying on DF's information