2105
Question 1
Issue: Did Kevin owe Darryl a duty of care?
Law: Occupier’s Liability Cases: Hackshaw v Shaw (trespasser case) OR Consolidated Broken Hill Ltd v Edwards (this is the better trespasser case)
Issue: Did Kevin breach his duty of care to Darryl?
Law: Sections 9(1) and 9(2) Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA)
Boulton v Stone, Paris v Stepney Borough Council to explain and apply ss 9(1) and 9(2).
Sections 13 and 15 CLA (obvious risk and duty to warn) –
Application: Kevin breached his duty of care to Darryl by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent the risk of injury to Darryl. Applying the three step test in s9(1) CLA:
The risk of harm was foreseeable because
The risk of harm was not insignificant because
Kevin did not take reasonable precautions against the risk of harm. Reasonable precautions would include
This is because
The probability of harm if the lid is left dislodged is high as
The harm of tripping on the lid or falling down the sewer may result in
The burden of taking precautions is very low as
Issue: Did Darryl suffer harm as a result of Kevin’s breach of duty?
Law: Section 11(1) (a) & (b) CLA Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (causation) Commonwealth v McLean ( remoteness)
Application: Two parts
Apply the ‘necessary condition’ test: State what caused Darryl’s broken leg (causation)
Determine what type of harm is a reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the breach of duty
Issue: Can Kevin rely on any defences?
Law: Section 23 (contributory negligence apply s9 and s11 to the plaintiff’s conduct) Ingram v Britten
Section 47 (intoxication as a presumption of contributory negligence)
Avram v Gusakoski or similar case on voluntary assumption of risk
Application:
Describe why the two conditions for voluntary assumption of risk: (i) knowledge of the risk and (ii) voluntary consent to the risk don’t apply
Contributory Negligence: Presumed under s47 due to Darryl’s intoxication: 25%
Issue: Did Kevin owe Darryl a duty of care?
Law: Occupier’s Liability Cases: Hackshaw v Shaw (trespasser case) OR Consolidated Broken Hill Ltd v Edwards (this is the better trespasser case)
Issue: Did Kevin breach his duty of care to Darryl?
Law: Sections 9(1) and 9(2) Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA)
Boulton v Stone, Paris v Stepney Borough Council to explain and apply ss 9(1) and 9(2).
Sections 13 and 15 CLA (obvious risk and duty to warn) –
Application: Kevin breached his duty of care to Darryl by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent the risk of injury to Darryl. Applying the three step test in s9(1) CLA:
The risk of harm was foreseeable because
The risk of harm was not insignificant because
Kevin did not take reasonable precautions against the risk of harm. Reasonable precautions would include
This is because
The probability of harm if the lid is left dislodged is high as
The harm of tripping on the lid or falling down the sewer may result in
The burden of taking precautions is very low as
Issue: Did Darryl suffer harm as a result of Kevin’s breach of duty?
Law: Section 11(1) (a) & (b) CLA Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (causation) Commonwealth v McLean ( remoteness)
Application: Two parts
Apply the ‘necessary condition’ test: State what caused Darryl’s broken leg (causation)
Determine what type of harm is a reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the breach of duty
Issue: Can Kevin rely on any defences?
Law: Section 23 (contributory negligence apply s9 and s11 to the plaintiff’s conduct) Ingram v Britten
Section 47 (intoxication as a presumption of contributory negligence)
Avram v Gusakoski or similar case on voluntary assumption of risk
Application:
Describe why the two conditions for voluntary assumption of risk: (i) knowledge of the risk and (ii) voluntary consent to the risk don’t apply
Contributory Negligence: Presumed under s47 due to Darryl’s intoxication: 25%