Torts All Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

tutorial notes and problem questions...

Description

ON CALL SUBMISSION – 2 pages – whatever you can fit in here Spot issues and cases that you need to Consider all cases and if it applies to this case and context i.e. the questions *Simply listing them and referring to the case is enough if you run out of time / words ONLY FOCUS ON Q1!!

Topic: Introduction - Scope and Context of Tort Law Textbook Readings: -

Balkin and Davis Ch 1 Lunney and Oliphant, Ch 1

CASES:

LEGISLATION COVERED:

1. Ollier v Magnetic Island Country Club [2004] QCA 137 2. Engert v. Sydney Ferries Corporation [2009] NSWSC 1400 3. Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 (CA) 4. Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 5. Google v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311 [51] 6. *ALRC Report 123: Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era

-

Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s14(1) Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) Limitation Amendment (Child Abuse) Act 2016 (NSW) Montreal Convention 1999 Article 35 Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Com) ss 9B, 34 Human Rights Act 1998 (UK)

Re a di ngNo t e s

Le c t ur e / Tut or i alNot e s

Balkin and Davis Ch 1

J e ff–t ut or / l e c t ur e

- Tor t=c on c e r n e dwi t ht hei n t e r e s t swh i c hap e r s o n h a si nb od i l ys e c ur i t yort h epr o t e c t i onoft a n g i b l e p r op e r t y ,fina nc i a lr e s o u r c e so rr e p u t a t i onwh i c ha r e p r o t e c t e db yl a wa n dwh i c ha r en o te x c l u s i v e l ywi t h i n t h efie l dso ft h el a wo fc o n t r a c t ,t hel a wo fr e s t i t u t i o n o rt h ec r i mi n a ll a w - Thepr i nc i pl ea i mo ft hel a wo ft o r t s o Topr o v i dec o mp e n s a t i o nf o ro ne wh oh a sbe e ni n j u r e db ya no t h e r ’ s i n v a s i o nofa ni nt e r e s tde e me d wo r t h yo fp r o t e c t i o nb yt h el a w - Di s t i ng ui s hi ngTo r tf r o mc o nt r a c t o ( a )t o r td ut i e sa r eo we dt ot hewho l e wo r l d–whe r e a sc o n t r a c t u a ldu t i e s a r eo we do nl yt ot heo t h e r c o nt r a c t i n gpa r t y , o ( b)t or td u t i e sa r ei mp os e db yl a w wh i l ec on t r a c td ut i e sa r ed e t e r mi ne d b yt h ep a r t i e s

- Co n t e n to fs t a r r e dr e a d i n g sy o uwi l lb ea s s e s s e don - Bef a mi l i a rwi t ht h en o ns t a rma t e r i a lt ot h ee x t e nt t h a ti ti sr a i s e di nl e c t ur e s / t u t o r i a l s - Fo c u so ne x t r a c t so fc a s e si nt hec a s eb o ok( s o me d e t a i l sa r ei r r e l e v a n t )

1 9Apr i l–a s s e s s me nt Fr i4thJ une-Fi na las s i g nme nt Onc a l l–wr i t t e no ut l i ne–t ofir s tt ut o r i a lque s t i o nf o r t ha twe e k–s e tputa s“Que s t i t o n1 ”i nr e a di ngg ui def o r t ha tt o pi c Dr a f t2pa g er e s po ns e–t ha tt i s2A4pa g e s ,t i me sne w r o man,1 2po i ntf o nt , 1. 5s pac i ng , Submi ta tl e a s t2 4 hour sbe f o r et ut o r i a l Dur i ngt ha tt ut–di r e c tque s t i o nsa ty o udur i ngt he t ut o r i a l–y o urr e s po ns e st ov e r ba lc onv e r s a t i o n

Lunney and Oliphant, Ch 1 Bu tma ybeob s e r v e d , i nr e l a t i ont ot h efir s to ft h e s es u g g e s t e d d i s t i n c t i on s , t h a tt h et or tdut yt opr e v e ntpu r e l ye c o n omi c - Eme r g e n c eo ft or tl a wa n dh i s t o r i c a lma t e r i a li s l o s sb yon e ’ sn e g l i g e n ta c t si so we do nl yt ot hei n d i v i d u a l r e a l l yi mp or t a n t me mb e r so fad e t e r mi n a t ec l a s so fwhoon eh a skn o wl e d g eor - Kn o wt hi sr e a l l ywe l l–r o o t e di nt h eo l dc a s e s t h eme a n so fk no wl e d g et h a ni ni nd i v i du a li sl i k e l yt os u ffe r s u c hh a r m To r t ss e e kt op r o t e c tadi v e r s er a n g eo fi n t e r e s t s ,f r om

GWi l l i a ms ,‘ TheAi mo ft heLa wo fTor t ’[ 1 9 51 ]CLP1 3 7 - Ap pe a s e me n t , J u s t i c e ,d e t e r r e n c e ,a n dc o mp e ns a t i o n

p h y s i c a li nt e g r i t yt or e p u t a t i o n

- No ta l lo ft h e ma r ee q u a l

r tl a wh a st os e r v ea n df u n c t i o na n dp u r p os e Pr o mi s s or ye s t oppe l :As p e c i e so fe q ui t a b l ee s t o p pe l , To - I si tl i v i n gu pt oi t sa i ms a r i s i n gf r o mr e pr e s e n t a t i o n sa b ou tp r e s e n to rf ut u r e - I fn o t ?Wha td owed o–wer e f o r m r i gh t sb e t we e np a r t i e s - I si ti n c o n s i s t e n twi t hc o mp e n s a t i o n, de t e r r e n c e–i . . e s ot h e nwec h a n g ei t–u s i n gc o mmo nl a wme t h o do r Es t o ppe l :Th ed oc t r i n ed e s i g n e dt opr o t e c tap e r s o n( A) l e g i s l a t i on wh oh a sa c t e do na na s s ump t i o no re x p e c t a t i o ni n d u c e d - Ap pe a s e me n t–s a t i s f yi n gt h ev i c t i m– b ya n o t h e rp e r s o n( B)f r o mt hede t r i me ntwhi c hwo ul d o t h e yg e tmo n e y , flo wf r o m A’ sc h a n g eo fp o s i t i o ni fBwe r ea l l o we dt o o t h ewr o n g d o e rp a y s wi t h d r a wt h ea s s ump t i o no re x p e c t a t i ont h a tl e dt ot h e - Wea r ec h a n ne l l i n gou rd i s p ut e st oal a wf ul c ha n g e me c h a n i s ms owec a nr e s o l v et h e mpe a c e f ul l y S a f e t y v a l v e f u n c t i o n o f t h e l a w o f t o r t p r o b a b l y - An di nma n yc o nt r a c ta c t i o nst hepl a i n t i ffs e e k st o t a k e s a s u b o r d i n a t e p l a c e r e c o v e ras p e c i fie ds u mo fmo n e y , whe r e a st h e

d a ma g e sc l a i me di nat o r ta c t i ona r eg e n e r a l l y J u s t i c e : u n l i q u i d a t e d - Et h i c a lc o mp e ns a t i o n * - Th el a wo ft or t sp e r mi t st h ea wa r do fe x e mp l a r y o Go ods o c i a le ffe c t s d a ma g e sf orwr on g swh i c ha r eno ta l s oc r i me s–s u c h - Et h i c a lr e t r i b ut i o n a sde c e i t ,a b u s eo fp r o c e s sa nd( i ns o mei ns t a n c e s ) o No tk e e n–e x a c t i n gv e n g e a n c ef o r n e g l i g e n c e–a swe l la sf o rt h o s ewh i c ha r e ,i n c l u di n g t h ev i c t i m t r e s pa s st ot h ep e r s o na n dt og o o d sa n dde f a ma t i o n. - Th emo r a la p p e a lo fe t h i c a lc omp e n s a t i o no v e r r e t r i b ut i o n Ma j o rFunc t i ono fTo r tl a w: - Topr o v i dec o mp e n s a t i o nf o rl os s e swh i c ha r et h e De t e r r e nc e : i n e v i t a b l er e s u l t sofl i f eono u rc o mpl e xa n d - Us u a l l ya s s i gnt oc r i mi n a ll a w i n t e r r e l a t e ds o c i e t ywhi c ha r ed e e me dwo r t h yo f - Sl i g h te l e me n t so fi tt h a ti so k a y r e p u t a t i o n - Sh o ul d n ’ tbet h ema i nf o c u s - To r tl a wc omp e ns a t e sa ndc r i mi n a ll a wp e n a l i s e s - Topr o v i dec o mp e n s a t i o nf o rma n yo ft h el os s e s - Th ea i ms ? s u ffe r e dt h r o u g ho urmo d e r nwa yo fl i f e , t h a t o De t e r&pu ni s hv s .c omp e ns a t e c o mpe ns a t i o nwi l ls c a r c e l ye v e rb ee ffe c t i v eu n l e s s D o e s n ’ t fi t i n w h a t h a p p e n s i n T o r t L a w d e f e n d a n ti si n s ur e da g a i n s tl i a b i l i t y o Pe o pl eg e to v e rc o mp e n s a t e d D e t e r r e n c e n o t h a v i n g r o l e i n j u s t i fi c a t i o n a st h e De t e r r e nc e a m o u n t s a w a r d e d m i g h t b e s m a l l e r - Tr e s pa s s=d i r e c t& i n t e n t i on a li n v a s i o noft h eP’ s - E. g .a g gr a v a t e dd a ma g e s i n t e r e s t si nbo d i l ys e c ur i t y ,t a n g i b l eg o od sa n dl a n d o T h i s i sj us tf ort hel a r g ed a ma g e s a wa r d e dd u et os i g ni fic a ntf a c t o ro f - . . t h ec a s e - . .

Co mpe ns a t i o n: - Ti e st oe t h i c a lc o mp e ns a t i o n

Lunney and Oliphant, Ch 1 - . .

Tutorial Notes HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND INTENTIONAL TORTS TO THE PERSON (Week 4, week beginning 22 March) Required reading: Cases and legislation in Topics 2 and 3 Question 1A (Note particularly the case of Platt v Nutt (Cases, ch 1) Hugo and Jack (who were in opposing teams) were playing cricket one Saturday at a local park. As he left the field after being bowled, Jack in a temper threw his bat at a tree - it bounced and hit Hugo (who was fielding nearby) on the head, rendering him unconscious for 15 minutes and causing him to have 10 stitches.

TUTORIAL RESPONSE:         

who can sue who for what? what constitutes battery? directness? – are hugo’s injuries as a resut of jack’s conduct? – yes – scott v shepherd Use of force?  More than is reasonably considered as part of our every day life Analogise other cases Relevance to claim trespass or Reasonable care? Black and waters case Jack to show absence of negligence – fault requirement Intention? Throwing bat against tree not to a person – but still question of negligence – what was the intention of throwing the bat?  Jack seemingly didn’t intend to hurt anyone and there was rickshas  he was not acting intentionally  Is it necessary to establish intention in trespass – that jack intended to cause injury –  Not enough certainty – likelihood of injury to occur  If someone is acting voluntarily, they are acting intentionally  Exception: context and information  Have some mind to the outcome that might occur? Conclusion: jack is liable for trespass Elements: 1) Cause of action - break down elements – directness & fault  reach conclusion a. Directness b. Fault - intention or negligence 2) Onus of proof – onus to disprove fault 3) Jack is liable for hugo on battery Every tort can be broken down into the elements for tort to be made out Defences? Question 1B - Platt v Nutt Jack’s wife Marsha then got into an argument with another of Hugo’s teammates, Clive, over Jack’s conduct and stormed off to her car. Clive followed her and they argued through the open window. Clive had his hand resting on the sill when Marsha flicked the switch to close the window automatically. Clive’s hand was jammed and injured. It is unclear whether or not Marsha knew his hand was there. Discuss the legal issues that arise on these facts.  Is trespass actionable perse? – damage has to be there – you do not need to prove it – injury has to be caused by the action – technical elements of battery vs. proving directness element – onus shifts to defendant to disproves fault o Negligence you have to prove damages  Plaintiff doesn’t need to prove damage  Damage is the gist of the action – plaintiff has to show damage  Trespass – plaintiff doesn’t need to prove anything to establish claim  Platt v Nutt – at the same time the door is slammed the plaintiff’s arm went up – unclear if she out her arm up to stop the door or put plaintiff put arm up to stop herself? o Think of elements of battery – broadly? – directness & fault?  Onus of proving directness of battery claim?  Disproving fault? The defendant  Evidence did not show if plaintiff intervened in action of the door (result of own wilful act or pout arm up) – unclarity of evidence  She did not discharge her onus of directness  That first direct element of battery – evidence not clear – TF goes against person who has onus

o

How does this apply to Clive v Marsha?  Did he have the opportunity to move his hand away? – relevance of plat v Nutt  Can Clive discharge the onus of proving that his injuries were not as a result of his own wilful conduct  Marsha – she stormed off to her car – she was moving away from Clive and he pursued her - is it possible that this is an assault? Can Marsha sue Clive for assault? (we do not have many facts – it is possibly suggestive on facts) o Clive putting hand on windowsill – could be seen as threatening/potential assault o Whether these facts disclose a defence for Marsha?  Self-defence? –whether she flicked the switch to defend against Clive’s conduct? That would justify the battery? o Taking intuition and fitting it into existing torts and action

Broad issues:  Trespass – can hugo sue jack for battery?  Battery  Assault o Think of elements, think of onus of proof, cause of action that arises from the facts, apply authority and case application,  Running out of time? Scribble down issues you couldn’t include and dot points o  For class participation?

Topic: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MODERN TORT LAW Textbook Readings: -

Balkin and Davis Ch 2

CASES:

LEGISLATION COVERED:

Direct/Indirect Interferance -

Scot v Shepherd Hutchins v Maughan

Re a di ngNo t e s -

. . . . . . . .

Le c t ur e / Tut or i alNot e s T or t si nt h en e ws : - DrEl a i n eSt e a ds u e dFa i r f a xme d i af o r d e f a ma t i on - Ob t a i n e df a v o u r a b l ej u d g e me n ton2 7J a n2 0 2 1 - Fa i r f a xd e p e n d e dp a r t l yont h eb a s i so ft r u t h–i t l a t e rwi t h d r e wt h a td e f e n c e - Wi t h d r a wa lo ft r u t hd e f e n c e–t oo kp o s s i b i l i t yt o d e f e n dhe r s e l fo ffh et a b l e - Dono tt a k et h ea r t i c l ea sr u l ei n1 9 5 1 - TORTLAW BEI NGEXPRESSI VE

Tut or i alQue s t i ons/Que s t i onst oCo ns i de r WORKSHOP ON ANSWERING TORTS PROBLEM QUESTIONS (Week 3, week beginning 15 March) Required reading: Handout on how to answer problem questions. A copy of this handout will be available on Canvas. Please consider the following questions when reading the handout on how to answer a problem question: What are the main qualities of a good answer to a problem question? How will you prepare to answer a problem question?

How much detail should you provide about a case or statute? How will you put this in to practise throughout the semester?

IRAC: - Issue , Rule, Application, Conclusion - State the issue: the issue is whether… - Sate the Rule - Apply the rule to facts - Conclusion: Answer the question you sated at the outset Move on to next issue, repeat the process Note: Sometimes you may see CREAC or TREAT – the same thing Read the Q carefully Really read – ignore, advise, Structure response to certain causes of action Divide into constituent elements Defences Broadly two elements – e.g. directness, fault of injury Defences Don’t waste Time on plainly relevant causes of action Relevance to the facts is what should guide you

ISSUE:  Typically the issue is ttied ot the specific maters and dacts of the case  Why? Judicial power is limited to the actual dispute in the front fo judges o Be as narrow as possible o Judges can only address facturral circumstances pesent on the evidence  If issue is obvious – don’t spend too much time here  The more controversial / trickier issue – chance to shine – address these and analyse and unpack these  If issue is obvious – need one sentence to address  ISSUES IN DOUBT THAT TIS WHERE YOU SPEND YOUR TIME  ‘opt in’ to the question  e.g. injury is indirect so no trespassing line?  we can be wrong on the first issue  Marks are allocated to each issue you can spot  If one element is not satisfied – still consider the other elements of the action General structure: - The issue is whether [legal conclusion] *main to include in exam answers* when [relevant facts] * *luxury in exam if running out of time* o E.g. Scott v Shepherd: o The issue is whether trespass can be claimed by Scott when the defendant threw a squib into a loaded market which struck the plaintiff in the face causing a loss in eyesight o Indirect or direct injury  The issue is whether the squib landed in the face of the plaintiff as a direct result of the initial throw by the def, or what is consequential on the def’s actions thereby establishing indirect action  Whether there has been injury (issue)  Whether there has been direct or indirect (sub issue) - Is the injury a direct consequence or not direct consequence - Be mindful of your tangents - IRAC can help you structure your response Don’t spend too much on the issue statement – the meat of your work is on analysis Examples:

The issue is whether Scott’s injury was immediate when the firework that Shepherd threw into the market, and that passed from Yates to Ryal to Scott, exploded in Scott’s face The issue is whether the loss of Hutchin’s dogs was an immediate injury when the dogs ate poisonous baits that Maughan had placed along a creek No magic in how you state it – the substance matters

Rule Keep the facts out of this section State the rule Explain the rule if necessary: - Authority for the rule - How has it been applied - Purpose of the policy of the rule - Other factors and ambiguities - Think about building blocks of the rule A person who is hit by a piece of timber thrown by another suffers an immediate injury … Reynolds v clark Citing legal authority for legal propositions # An injury is direct if it follows so immediately on the act that it counts as part of that act, and it is consequential if it can only be regarded as a consequence of that act. Scott v Shepherd; Leame v Bray General law – however it is worth considering …. When do you cite * specific case* as authority? Lean towards modern authority But if you can cite multiple cases cite most relevant Cite the star cases in your reading guide  they will check if it is authoritative for this preposition of law Interpretation  is there a case that tells you how to interpret – use that If there is one without authority – If there is case law telling you how to interpret – use that law

Application Explain why the facts satisfy or do not satisfy the requirements in the rule Track your rule explanation section - How do purposes and policy rationales apply? - Analogise to other cases For each point, write a thesis statement and explain how and why it applies - Do not use first screen shot – use this one: Here (signal this is the application section – after this you are telling the marker here is my application section, I have stated the rule and here is how I will apply it) Here Because Similar For that reason Connection words/language  this is the kind of reasoning they want to see in marking Thesis – analogising – connection Conclusion: State the conclusion (applying to the facts of your case) clearly Summarise (very briefly) the most relevant factors They want you to come to a conclusion – the most likely outcome is x – don’t be too cautious

Overall: - Multiple IRACS - Unclear Rules

IRAC in practice: - Dear client o o o o

The issue in your case is …… The rule governming this legal issue is ….. This rule is likely to be applied to your facts in this way:…. This application leads to the conclusion that….

In exam do not restate the facts! Focus on the issue

Topic 3: Trespass to the Person Readings: Balkin and Davis – Ch 3 –

Cases: Cole v Turner (1704) 90 ER 958 In Re F [1990] 2 AC 1 (Lord Goff or Chieveley)  implied consent/daily life Rixon v Star City (2001) 53 NSWLR 98  Battery and assault; acceptable touching; Fault?) Croucher v Cachia [2016] NSWCA 132 Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735 Hall v Fonceca [1983] WAR 309 CAN 087 528 774 Pty Ltd (formely Connex Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd) v Chetcuti (2008) 21 VR 559 ** compare to Rixon v Start City Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206 Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3 [86 ER 584] Police v Greaves [1964] NZLR 295 Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451 * R v Ireland [1998] AC 147

Balven v Thurston [2013] NSWSC 210 Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim 11 Bird v Jones (1985) 115 ER 668 R v Macquarie (1875) 13 SCR 264 Symes v Mahon [1922] SASR 447 ** Burton v Davies [1953] QSR 26 Herring v Boyle (1834) 149 ER 1126 (Bolland B) Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co (1919) 122 LT 44 (Atkin LJ) Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692 (Lord Griffiths) *State of SA v Lampard-Trevorrow (2010) 106 SASR 331

*Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379; affd [1910] AC 295

Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co [1915] AC 67

Other Readings:  

Bahner v Marwest Hotel Co (1969) 6 DLR (3d) 322 ~ Tan, “A misconceived issue in the tort of false imprisonement” (1981) 44 Modern Law Review 166 ~

Reading & Lectu...