Cheat Sheet for Commercial Law
NEGLIGENCE
According to common law, “negligence is defined as a conduct that fall below the standard of care necessary to protect other from unreasonable risk of injury”. The legal issue is whether […….] can successfully sue […….] for negligence. In order to know whether the defendant commit negligence or not, 4 elements must be satisfied, including 1) Duty of care (DoC), 2) Breach of the DoC, 3) Causation and 4) Remoteness.
1) DUTY OF CARE
Case 1: PHYSICAL INJURY: The first element to be proven is whether D owed P a DOC by….
R: To prove that D owes a DOC to P, the P must show that at the time of D’s careless action, it was RF that harm to person like P could result.
A: Here, when D carelessly to do (…), it was RF that harm to P could result b/c…
Additionally, to know whether […….] owed […….] a DoC for physical injury, we apply Lord Atkin’s Neighbour test, we owe a DoC to our neighbours who are closely and directly affected by our act. According to Donoghue vs Stevenson,P is the neighbour of D since P is other drivers on the street/ passengers on the D property/ pedestrians/ owners of property next to the street (Australian Safeway Stores v. Zaluzna), …. Therefore,P is the type that D should RF might be injured by his/her carelessness in D’s action C: Therefore, D owed/ didn’t owe P a DoC for physical injury.
RECOGNISE DoC: Drivers – other drivers, passengers, pedestrians, owners of buildings next to the street; Manufacturers – customers (Donoghue v. Stevenson); Owners/occupiers of property (Australian Safeway Stores v. Zaluzna) – people entering their property; professionals – clients.
IF there is 3 rd party >> Failure TO ACT to prevent harm (2 factors): R: No DoC unless it is RF that the D’s failure to act could cause harm to someone like the P and either (a) The parties are in a relationship of reliance and dependence (teacher, doctor, prisoner, employer) OR (b) The defendant has control over the person or property causing the harm
According to common law, “negligence is defined as a conduct that fall below the standard of care necessary to protect other from unreasonable risk of injury”. The legal issue is whether […….] can successfully sue […….] for negligence. In order to know whether the defendant commit negligence or not, 4 elements must be satisfied, including 1) Duty of care (DoC), 2) Breach of the DoC, 3) Causation and 4) Remoteness.
1) DUTY OF CARE
Case 1: PHYSICAL INJURY: The first element to be proven is whether D owed P a DOC by….
R: To prove that D owes a DOC to P, the P must show that at the time of D’s careless action, it was RF that harm to person like P could result.
A: Here, when D carelessly to do (…), it was RF that harm to P could result b/c…
Additionally, to know whether […….] owed […….] a DoC for physical injury, we apply Lord Atkin’s Neighbour test, we owe a DoC to our neighbours who are closely and directly affected by our act. According to Donoghue vs Stevenson,P is the neighbour of D since P is other drivers on the street/ passengers on the D property/ pedestrians/ owners of property next to the street (Australian Safeway Stores v. Zaluzna), …. Therefore,P is the type that D should RF might be injured by his/her carelessness in D’s action C: Therefore, D owed/ didn’t owe P a DoC for physical injury.
RECOGNISE DoC: Drivers – other drivers, passengers, pedestrians, owners of buildings next to the street; Manufacturers – customers (Donoghue v. Stevenson); Owners/occupiers of property (Australian Safeway Stores v. Zaluzna) – people entering their property; professionals – clients.
IF there is 3 rd party >> Failure TO ACT to prevent harm (2 factors): R: No DoC unless it is RF that the D’s failure to act could cause harm to someone like the P and either (a) The parties are in a relationship of reliance and dependence (teacher, doctor, prisoner, employer) OR (b) The defendant has control over the person or property causing the harm