Negligence Causation And Remoteness Rev
Negligence Causation And Remoteness Revision
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort I (Intentional & Negligence) Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
Causation & Remoteness Causation According to CLA s 5E, plaintiff bears onus of proof of causation.
• At common law, it is established that the plaintiff need to show, On the balance of probability, (more probably than not): Tabet v Gett , the defendant's conduct was "a" cause of the plaintiff's damage: Coca Cola Amatil (NSW) v Pareezer
➡It is not necessary to be the sole cause of action, nor it is relevant to which negligence occurred first (if there are two or more cause of actions): Baker v Willoughby
➡However, if the supervening event is an act of god or natural illness, the defendant's liability may be reduced or negatived by this kind of vicissitude of life: Jobling v Associated Daries Relevant Legislation s 5D(1)(a) talks about factual causation, in order to prove the defendant's act is a cause of the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff needs to prove the factual causation is a necessary condition of the injury, what is reflected in the common law as the "but for" test. March v E & MH Stramare; Strong v Woolworths
• But for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would not .....(facts) s 5D(3)(a) The test of what the plaintiff would have done is subjective. s 5D(3)(b) The plaintiff's evidence as to what they would have done is inadmissible unless it is not in their own interest
• Chappel v Hart is not allowed under this provision s 5D(2) Exceptional case if you cannot get over the hurdle of 5D(1)
• Need to establish why and whether it is reasonable to impose liability on the defendant Remoteness Remoteness as a checkpoint of the scope of the defendant's liability is defined
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort I (Intentional & Negligence) Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
Causation & Remoteness Causation According to CLA s 5E, plaintiff bears onus of proof of causation.
• At common law, it is established that the plaintiff need to show, On the balance of probability, (more probably than not): Tabet v Gett , the defendant's conduct was "a" cause of the plaintiff's damage: Coca Cola Amatil (NSW) v Pareezer
➡It is not necessary to be the sole cause of action, nor it is relevant to which negligence occurred first (if there are two or more cause of actions): Baker v Willoughby
➡However, if the supervening event is an act of god or natural illness, the defendant's liability may be reduced or negatived by this kind of vicissitude of life: Jobling v Associated Daries Relevant Legislation s 5D(1)(a) talks about factual causation, in order to prove the defendant's act is a cause of the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff needs to prove the factual causation is a necessary condition of the injury, what is reflected in the common law as the "but for" test. March v E & MH Stramare; Strong v Woolworths
• But for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would not .....(facts) s 5D(3)(a) The test of what the plaintiff would have done is subjective. s 5D(3)(b) The plaintiff's evidence as to what they would have done is inadmissible unless it is not in their own interest
• Chappel v Hart is not allowed under this provision s 5D(2) Exceptional case if you cannot get over the hurdle of 5D(1)
• Need to establish why and whether it is reasonable to impose liability on the defendant Remoteness Remoteness as a checkpoint of the scope of the defendant's liability is defined