Law Notes

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 18
  • Published : April 1, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview

All the necessary elements of negligence must be proven by the plaintiff, and any possible defence must be countered, in order to successfully sue someone for negligence

• Negligence is a tort, involving another person’s failure to take reasonable care in circumstances where their conduct might foreseeably cause us harm or loss.

What is a tort?

• The Law of Torts is concerned with minimum standards of conduct expected between people.

• To establish liability for a tort you have to go to court (ie. your right to expect certain conduct is conferred by law). Liability in tort is based upon a ‘relationship of liability’ existing between people, in contrast to contractual rights which are based on the ‘relationship of agreement’ between parties to a contract.

Aim and elements of negligence

Aim: Protection of a person’s physical/mental health and their property and economic interests from damage caused by another person’s failure to take reasonable care.

Question: Why has negligence become so pervasive since Donoghue vStevenson in 1932?

“Origin of Negligence [ Donogue v Stevenson ]”

However, to be liable it must be shown:

Step 1: the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff;

Step 2: the defendant has failed (breached) to exercise the proper standard of care (i.e. been negligent); and

Step 3: the negligence caused the plaintiff’s (reasonably foreseeable) loss or damages.

Establishing a duty of care : Must establish 3 factors:

1. Reasonable foreseeability of harm (preliminary part to ‘neighbour principle’ developed in Donoghue v Stevenson p.38);

2. A relationship of sufficient proximity (developed from the ‘neighbour principle’ - later elaborated in pure economic loss cases as ‘special relationship’, Hedley Byrne & Co ltd v Heller and Partners ltd p.118)

3. No public policy which denies the existence of a duty of care.

• The existence of a duty of care is a question of law for the judge to decide

Element 1:Duty of care

Defendant must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which it can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure its neighbour -

• ‘Who, in law, is my neighbour?

Persons who are so closely or directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.’ (per Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson).

• Reasonable foreseeability of harm

• Preliminary part to ‘neighbour principle’ of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson.

Involves an objective test: would the defendant have foreseen the possibility of injury arising from the particular event?

• Often criticised as undemanding – isn’t everything that goes wrong reasonably foreseeable?

• Sufficient proximity

• Proximity involves the notion of nearness or closeness, focussing on the relationship between the parties.

• Proximity may be: Jaensch v Coffey (1985), p.46

– Physical;

– Circumstantial, for example an employment or professional relationship; or

– Causal, ie. some direct connection between conduct and injury.

Eg of the extension of negligence principles to all areas of the economy

• From negligent manufacture/production

– Donoghue v Stevenson p.38; Grant v Australian Knitting Mills p.60 - chemical residues (‘the Doctor’s underpants case’, p.36); O’Dwyer v Leo Buring p.58 - champagne plastic stopper; Perre v Apand (1999) - diseased potato seed, p.51

• Motorists & pedestrians

• Clients of professionals

– Chapel v Hart (1988) - medical negligence, p.67

– Professional advisers – discussed under negligent misrepresentation

• Entrants to premises and recreation areas

– Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987)p.43 - slippery supermarket floor:

– Club Italia...
tracking img