Final version for torts summary PDF PDF

Preview

Summary

summary for final exam...

Description

Page |1

Table of Contents Introduction--Negligence ...................................................................................... 4 Duty of care ........................................................................................................... 4 Established categories .......................................................................................................... 4 Natural and historical foundation of doc concept ......................................................... 5 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562(house of Lord) ......................................................... 5

Step 1 of the “test”: ‘reasonable foreseeability of harm and the reasonable plaintiff’6 Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 ............................................................................... 6 Caterson v Commissioner for Railways ................................................................................ 7 Chaster v Waverley Municipal council ................................................................................. 8 Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 (HL) ..................................................................................... 8 Sydney water corporation v Turano (2009) 239 CLR 51 ..................................................... 9

Step 2 of test: ‘limitation devices’ ................................................................................. 10 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 252 ................................................................................ 10

Complex duty of care ......................................................................................... 12 1. The Salient Features 'test' ............................................................................................. 12 (a) D's control or creation of risk: --create/increase the risk ..................................... 12 Donoghue v Stevenson* ........................................................................................................ 12 Modbury Shopping Centre* 7.5.16C (compare Safeway Stores v Zaluzna 7.5.3C for an established category); ........................................................................................................... 13 Sydney Water* 2.3.11C; ....................................................................................................... 14 Agar v Hyde* 2.4.12C; .......................................................................................................... 14 Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra* 7.7.2C;................................................................................... 14

(b) D's assumption of responsibility for risk: ............................................................... 15 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre*; ................................................................................ 15 Swain v Waverley City Council 7.7.7 ..................................................................................... 16

(c) P's vulnerability to and/or reliance on D: ............................................................... 16 Agar v Hyde* ......................................................................................................................... 16 Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry ........................................................................................... 16

(d) D's conflicting duties / coherence / 'policy': ...........................................................16 Sullivan v Moody* 2.2.17C ................................................................................................... 16

Page |2

Graham Barclay Oysters* .................................................................................................... 17

2.Special Duty of Care situations ...................................................................................... 17 Robertson v Swincer* 7.7.20C; ............................................................................................ 18 Smith v Leurs 7.7.28C........................................................................................................... 18 Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra* 7.7.2C; 7.7.4 to 7.7.6; 7.7.14 to 7.7.15; ............................... 19

2. Special kinds of harm: ................................................................................................ 21 Tame v NSW; ........................................................................................................................ 22 Annetts v Aus. Stations* ....................................................................................................... 22

3. Special selected 'no duty' situations (policy over-ride) (BRIEFLY ONLY) ............. 24 Sullivan v Moody................................................................................................................... 24 Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra*; .............................................................................................. 25

Breach of duty ..................................................................................................... 26 1. standard of care .............................................................................................................. 26 The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. ....................................................................... 26

Mason J’s test in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt ........................................................... 27 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 ............................................................... 27

The statutory ‘calculus’: s 5B &5C liability Act 2002 ................................................. 29 Bolton v Stone........................................................................................................................ 30 RTA v Dederer ...................................................................................................................... 30 Paris v Stepney Council ........................................................................................................ 31 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan ........................................................................... 32 Vairy v Wyong Shire Council .............................................................................................. 32 RC Church v Habda ............................................................................................................. 33 E v Australian Red Cross ..................................................................................................... 33

Warnings and ‘obvious risks’ in common law ............................................................. 34 2. the reasonable person..................................................................................................... 38 (a) age ............................................................................................................................... 38 McHale v Watson .................................................................................................................. 38

(b) mental illness ............................................................................................................. 39 Carrier v Bonham ................................................................................................................. 39

(c) inexperienced ............................................................................................................. 39

Page |3

Imbree v McNeilly ................................................................................................................. 39

(d) professional ................................................................................................................ 40 Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 .............................................................................. 40

3. Proving Breach ............................................................................................................... 41 (iii) ‘Proof?’ ..................................................................................................................... 41

Causation ............................................................................................................ 42 1. General principle ............................................................................................................ 42 2. factual causation (‘necessary condition’) ..................................................................... 45 Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 ................................................... 45 Strong v Woolworths Ltd t/as Big W (2012) 285 ALR 420 ................................................ 46

3. limits of but for test: multiple causes and defendants................................................. 48 4. remoteness of damage (and foreseeability) .................................................................. 49 --Unforeseeable harm may be too remote / beyond the scope of liability .................. 49 The Wagon Mound (No 1)[1961] AC 388 ............................................................................ 49 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 (HL) –manner in which harm came about ...... 50 Gittani Stone Pty Ltd v Parkovic (2007) Aust Torts Reports 81-924 (NSWCA) .................... 50 Nader v Urban Transit Authority of New South Wales (1985) 2 NSWLR 501 (CA) ....... 51 Kavanagh v Akhtar (1988) 45 NSWLR 588 ........................................................................ 51

--breaking the causal chain ............................................................................................ 52 Haber v Walker [1963] VR 339 (FC) ................................................................................... 52 Mahoney v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd (1985) 156 CLR 522 ................................ 53

Defences............................................................................................................... 54 (1) Contributory Negligence by P ..................................................................................... 54 (2) Voluntary Assumption of Risk by P ...........................................................................54

Vicarious liability................................................................................................ 55 Element 1 sufficient relationship ................................................................................... 55 Hollis v Vabu ......................................................................................................................... 55

Element 2: course and scope of employment ...............................................................57 Bugge v Brown ...................................................................................................................... 57 Deatons v Flew....................................................................................................................... 58

Page |4

New South Wales v Lepore ................................................................................................... 59 Prince Alfred College v ADC ............................................................................................... 60

Element 3: D’s negligence not employers ..................................................................... 60

Introduction--Negligence Elements of negligence P suffers a relevant actual harm 1. Duty of care (owed by D to class of Ps to which P belongs?) 2. Breach of duty (did D meet standard of reasonable care?) 3. Causation (did D’s breach cause, in fact +law, P’s harm) --any defence for D --any vicarious liability First, the plaintiff need to be negligence, the plaintiff need to show they belong to a class of people to whom the law recognised a duty of care is owed to take reasonable care in respect to their safety, even if the P is owing to show the duty of care, not the end of liability question.

Duty of care Established categories A. Duty of road users to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable physical harm to other road users (Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112) B. Duty of manufacturers of consumer products intended for consumption / use in the form in which they issue them with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination before consumption, where foreseeable that lack of reasonable care in the manufacturing process might injure the consumer’s person (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562). C. Duty of medical practitioners towards patients, to exercise reasonable care and skill in diagnosis, advice and treatment (Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479) D. Duty of care of employers to employees to take reasonable care to ensure a safe workplace (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367) E. Duty of occupiers of premises, owed to lawful entrants, to exercise reasonable care and skill to avoid foreseeable injury to entrants arising from the physical state and condition of the premises (Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479) F. Cases concerning pure mental harm have an outlined duty of care process in sections29-32 in the CLA G. NO DUTY OF CARE owed by parents to their children ( Robertson v Swincer)

Page |5

H. Duty of care owed by a pilot/driver etc to a passenger in their chosen vehicle (Imbree v McNeilly) I.

NO DUTY to warn of obvious risks (s.H of the CLA)

J. NO DUTY to protect lawful entrants onto lan from the actions of criminal third parties (Modbury Triangle shopping centre v Anzsil) Natural and historical foundation of doc concept Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562(house of Lord) ---3:2 Fact: P--end user consumers D--manufacturer P’s limited relationship to D, no contract with D In 1928, Mrs Donoghue went to a Scottish cafe with a friend, where this friend purchased a bottle of diner beer for her. This ginger beer was in an opaque bottle and was manufactured by Stevenson but sold in the shop by the cafe owner. Donoghue ordered an ice cream float, and the shop owner poured some of the ginger beer into the glass, which was consumed by her. Her friend then poured some more into the glass for her, when the remains of a decomposing snail emerged from the bottle, leading Donoghue to suffer from shock and gastro-enteritis. Issues: (a) Is this D legally responsible for P ‘s harm? (b) What wider consequence id DOC recognised? Ruling:(in P’s favour) (a) Narrow reading: Lord Macmillan—new DOC category “[t]he categories of negligence are never closed”, the circumstances are key to establishing whether a duty was created and if it has been breached. “the grounds of action may be as various and manifold as human errancy; and the conception of legal responsibility may develop in adaption to altering social conditions and standards. The criterion of judgement must adjust and adapt itself to the changing circumstances of life. The categories of negligence are never closed…” MacMillan then reiterates Atkin’s idea of reasonableness and states that “[i]t may be a good general rule to regard responsibility as ceasing when control ceases.” He then agrees that the appeal should be dismissed. (b) Broad reading: Lord Atkin’s –general principle of liability –judicial concern over indeterminate liability. how the sole question of the case is based on a duty of care from the manufacturer to the consumer.

Page |6

The ‘love your neighbour’ principle “becomes in law”, but the issue is who is your neighbour in law? In response to previously noting that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”, Atkin states that “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 which are called in question” who your neighbour is in law-- receive a restricted reply. (whatever morality question may surround that – moral duty≠ legal duty) “proximity be not confined to mere physical proximity, but be used … to extend to such close and direct relations that the act complained of directly affects” where the duty of care is. He uses this to say how since the manufacturer produced the “article of food” to be consumed and how no consumer should feel the need to inspect the product before it is consumed, negligence in its production is present. Atkin then points out how there is no clear remedy for poisoned customers in the law, and broadens the principle from articles of food to general goods in an attempt to eliminate this. “a manufacturer of products, which he sells … to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the customer to take that reasonable care.” He then motions for the appeal to be allowed. D v S: A basic test for DoC? Reasonable foreseeability of risk of harm of that sort ---someone in D’s position should have reasonably foreseen their conduct would be likely to injure P if care not taken. PLUS Sufficient ‘proximity’ of relationship between P and D ---P belongs to a class of people [sufficiently] ‘closely and directly affected’ by D’s activity such as to mark them out from the world as ones that D should exercise care for. Step 1 of the “test”: ‘reasonable foreseeability of harm and the reasonable plaintiff’ What must P show for any Doc to exist? Why? Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112(RF at the Doc stage) Significance 1. Duty of Care: reasonable foreseeability element (p. X book) 2. Causation: ‘remoteness’: test for new intervening acts (later negligence by another D) (p. X)

Page |7

Fact: P—Dr cherry D1 –Chapman D2 –Hearse A, driving carelessly, injured himself B stop to help A (on the road) C drive carelessly kills B Chapman negligently collided with the care of Emery at around 6:15pm on a September evening due to Emery slowing down and indicating right. Chapman was flung from his vehicle (as there were no seat belts around at the time) and Emery’s vehicle was overturned. A Dr Cherry came to the assistance of Chapman on the road, but he was negligently run down by Hearse, who was travelling the same direction Chapman was, killing him. Dixon CJ –principle of reasonable foreseeability It is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the precise manner in which his injuries were sustained was reasonably foreseeable; it is sufficient if it appears that injury to a class of persons which he was one might reasonably have been seen as a consequence. ---reasonable foreseeability related to the Doc, the P does not need to show the process throughout the event is reasonable foreseeable, just that a consequence of that same general character was reasonable foreseeable. Issue / Rule outline •Duty: what is meant by ‘reasonable foreseeability’ as the necessary first test of a DoC? -D1 owed road users a standard established DoC w.r.t his own driving, but did that class of potential plaintiffs (‘road users’) also include persons like P: not injured directly by D1’s own driving but by later negligent driving of another, D2? -A necessary requirement for any DoC is that harm of that general kind (‘physical injury’) was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D1’s negligence, in the sense that it was ‘not unlikely’ to occur if reasonable care not taken. --- reasonable foreseeability =a risk that is real i.e. not unlikely -P need only show harm of that general character was reasonably foreseeable; P does not need to show a reasonable person could have foreseen the precise sequence of events. - [D1 owed P a duty of care because the harm was foreseeable in the above sense] Caterson v Commissioner for Railways(NSW) (1973) 128 CL...