Liability for Negligence
!
!
!
Liability for Negligence!
1. The Duty!
PURE ECONOMIC LOSS !
Neighbour Test (Donoghue v Stevenson): Care must be taken to avoid acts
Salient Features Test (Perre v Apand): Neighbour test is not enough in cases of
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who are
pure economic loss to establish a duty of care, which caused a need for further
persons I ought to reasonably have in contemplation as I take an action/omission.
tests to identify if there was a duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
‘SALIENT FEATURES’!
Relationship
Description
Manu. &
Consumers
Manufacturers owe a duty to users of their products to take reasonable care to protect users from injuries (to person or property) that are reasonably foreseeable. (Grant v Knitting Mills)
Manu. &
Innocent
Bystanders
Manufacturers owe a duty to innocent bystanders that the use of their products don’t cause harm to innocent bystanders providing that the injury (to persons or property) is reasonably foreseeable.
Distributors
Distributors owe a duty of care to their consumers that they sell, when the product is examinable and the retailer is in a position to give warning or advise on use. (McPherson v Eaton)
Service
Providers
Service providers generally owe a duty to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable injury in providing their service, they may be liable to both the client and any innocent bystander that has been hurt. Property
Owners
(Safeway v Zaluzna). Property owners owe a duty to take reasonable care not to avoid foreseeable risk to injury to people on their premises, whether the hazard was created by them or not. However, when a there is the involvement of a third party, there can be exceptions. Road Users
Feature
Description
Reasonable
Foreseeability
Was it reasonably foreseeable that the negligent acts of the defendant could cause harm/injury to persons/property?
!
!
Liability for Negligence!
1. The Duty!
PURE ECONOMIC LOSS !
Neighbour Test (Donoghue v Stevenson): Care must be taken to avoid acts
Salient Features Test (Perre v Apand): Neighbour test is not enough in cases of
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who are
pure economic loss to establish a duty of care, which caused a need for further
persons I ought to reasonably have in contemplation as I take an action/omission.
tests to identify if there was a duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
‘SALIENT FEATURES’!
Relationship
Description
Manu. &
Consumers
Manufacturers owe a duty to users of their products to take reasonable care to protect users from injuries (to person or property) that are reasonably foreseeable. (Grant v Knitting Mills)
Manu. &
Innocent
Bystanders
Manufacturers owe a duty to innocent bystanders that the use of their products don’t cause harm to innocent bystanders providing that the injury (to persons or property) is reasonably foreseeable.
Distributors
Distributors owe a duty of care to their consumers that they sell, when the product is examinable and the retailer is in a position to give warning or advise on use. (McPherson v Eaton)
Service
Providers
Service providers generally owe a duty to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable injury in providing their service, they may be liable to both the client and any innocent bystander that has been hurt. Property
Owners
(Safeway v Zaluzna). Property owners owe a duty to take reasonable care not to avoid foreseeable risk to injury to people on their premises, whether the hazard was created by them or not. However, when a there is the involvement of a third party, there can be exceptions. Road Users
Feature
Description
Reasonable
Foreseeability
Was it reasonably foreseeable that the negligent acts of the defendant could cause harm/injury to persons/property?