Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

SUT B: Tort of Negligence, Negligence:, djwfjwf - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Defendant may owe a duty of care in relation to bodily injury
      - BUT, not economic loss
  - - - Starting point - refer to existing precedent
      - Cases may provide a clear answer (indicating that a duty is or is not owed)
      - In rare cases - precedents provide no clear answer & the courts must utilise a more general approach
  - - - denies a duty of care
      - makes it difficult for claimants to establish a duty of care
      - Relates to:
        
        Particular situations of harm (e.g: economic loss)
        
        How harm is suffered
        
        Who the defendant is
- - - - KEY POINT:
        
        how & where the courts set the acceptable standard of care owed
      - 2 Qs to be asked:
        
        Matter of law:
        How should the defendant have behaved?
        What was the required standard of care?
        
        Matter of fact:
        How did the defendant behave?
  - - - Based on evidence presented
      - Burden is placed on the claimant to lay out
    - - by assessing the circumstances (of the accident or injury)
        ^ (res ipsa loquitur - 'the thing speaks for itself')
    - - (1) Factor(s) that caused the accident/injury need to have been carried out by the defendant
      - (2) The accident/injury must take place ‘in the ordinary course of things'
      - Where the defendant is unable to explain how the accident happened
        BUT
        is able to prove that they exercised all reasonable care
        = they will not be found liable
- - - - Factual
        
        Balances the probabilities to decipher whether the defendant caused harm
      - Legal
        
        Poses a Q of whether any factual causes should not be included in being a cause of law
      - If either test ('factual' or 'legal') fails, the defendant is able to escape liability
  - - - The 'real' cause in law (legal causation) still has to be determined
        
        2 tests can be undertaken:
        
        (1) Was the harm too remote a consequence?
        
        (2) Whether any further events could have contributed to the harm/injury?