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 (applies to a theft also). Case 2: PURELY PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES
I: The legal issue is whether D owed P DOC regarding pure psychological injuries by ... R: The rule is Neighbour test, which says that the defendant (D) owed a DOC for psychological injury to the plaintiff (P) if D’s action was reasonably foreseeable (RF) to cause serious psychological harm to persons like P and P has good evidence of serious mental illness. To prove that, we consider 2 elements from (Jaensch v Coffey) case. a. Neighbour test: It must have been RF that our actions could have caused someone like the P to suffer a serious mental illness b/c … b. The plaintiff must have good evidence of a serious mental illness. (Doctor diagnoses or other good evidence: cannot sleep, eat, lost many weights)… IF NO good evidence=No DOC Case,similar to. Gifford v. Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (employer’s liability to children of worker). Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (employer owed a DOC to employee who assisted a seriously burned co-worker). Sullivan v. Moody (there cannot be a duty of care that conflicts with a statutory duty to carry out investigations) These 2 elements are/not satisfied, D owed/ didn’t owe P a DOC for purely psychological injuries. Case 3: PURE ECONOMIC LOSS The legal issue is whether D owed P a DOC for PEL by… R & A: The law says that D owed a DOC for PEL to the P if the P could prove 4 perre v. Apand factors. (a) Neighbour test: Was the type of P RF? Here, it was RF, that D’s careless act could cause economic loss to a type of person like P b/c... (Cause severe damage to property and then cause economic loss to adjacent properties due to repairs, rebuilding,etc.).Thus, D was more/less likely to owe a DOC to P. (b) Legitimate business interest: Were the D’s actions legitimately protecting the D’s business interests? Here, D had (no) legitimate business interest in D’s action), D did it due to… Thus, D was more/less likely to owe a DOC to P. (If D was protecting business interest, no DOC...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document