Case Study Negligent V.

2.1 (a) In the decision of District Court of New South Wales, Appellant (Ms Derrick) owed the Respondent (Rosannie Cheung) a duty of care, as she was driving at such a speed that it was beyond her ability to stop the car in time and notice that a child which suddenly darted from one of the parked cars. In addition, nearby shops and houses combined with the date, Saturday morning shortly before Christmas, should have alerted Ms Derrick that small children might be playing around, so she needed to pay extra attention in that circumstance. However, in the decision of the High Court of Australia, it pronounced the judgment that “No negligence on the part of the appellant was established.” The fact, Rosannie Cheung struck by the car, is unavoidable. Ms Derrick’s was driving within the prescribed speed limit, which was 45 to 50 Kilometers per hour. It was impossible to stop timely to avoid the accident, so she did not owe Rosannie Cheung a duty of care.
(b) In the decision of District
The three possible scenarios postulated by counsel for Mrs Hall at the trial are the following “(i) The documents were presented, already signed, to Mr Graham and he witnessed them then. (ii) Mr Hall wrote Mrs Hall’s signature on the document in Mr Graham’s presence. (iii) A person purporting to be Mrs Hall signed the documents in Mr Graham’s presence.” As a witness, Mr Graham signed the documents without attestation. Although Mr Gelin did not investigate whether Mrs Hall was dying of cancer that could not sign the documents on the spot, Mr Graham still should have able to raise reasonable doubt that was there any medical certificate for Mrs Hall’s absence or other evidence that could prove the mortgage is her will which unimpeded express her comprehensive real meaning. In addition, there was no statutory or other need for him to sign the mortgage. He did that completely under his own volition. Therefore, he breached his duty of