Commercial Law Flow Charts and Notes
Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and 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 that are called in question Donoghue v Stevenson
Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and 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 that are called in question Donoghue v Stevenson
Reasonable Person Test - individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985)
Reasonable Person Test - individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985)
* Expert or professional
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 50 * Children
McHale v Watson (1966) * Disability
Not acceptable in: Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) * Inexperience
Not acceptable in: Imbree v McNeilly (2008)
* Expert or professional
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 50 * Children
McHale v Watson (1966) * Disability
Not acceptable in: Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) * Inexperience
Not acceptable in:
Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and 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 that are called in question Donoghue v Stevenson
Reasonable Person Test - individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985)
Reasonable Person Test - individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)
Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985)
* Expert or professional
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 50 * Children
McHale v Watson (1966) * Disability
Not acceptable in: Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) * Inexperience
Not acceptable in: Imbree v McNeilly (2008)
* Expert or professional
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 50 * Children
McHale v Watson (1966) * Disability
Not acceptable in: Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) * Inexperience
Not acceptable in: