Laws1113 - Final Exam Cases - Negligence

Front 1

Donoghue v Stevenson

Back 1

A duty of care is owed to those who can be reasonable foreseen to be affected by your actions.

Front 2

Jaensch v Coffey

Back 2

It is reasonably foreseeable that negligent behaviour causing harm to a person can also cause actionable harm to their loved ones.

Front 3

Perre v Apand

Back 3

Proximity is not a requirement for negligence, pure economic loss is covered even when the exact amount is difficult to prove.

Front 4

Chapman v Hearse

Back 4

If negligent behaviour results in an individual requiring rescue, they are liable for any harm suffered by their rescuer.

If an action is reasonably forseeable consequence of negligence, you are liable for any damage suffered as a result of that consequence.

In the case of several concurrent tortfeasors, it is up to the tortfeasors themselves to sue for contribution once one or more has been held liable.

Front 5

Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co

Back 5

There must be a direct causation between the negligent act and the damage.

Front 6

Manley v Alexander

Back 6

A road user owes a duty of care to any other potential road users or pedestrians.

Front 7

Watt v Rama

Back 7

The duty owed by a pregnant mother extends to an unborn child only after the child has been born alive.

Front 8

Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University

Back 8

Employers creating an unsafe working environment are liable under negligence for any harm suffered by employees.

Front 9

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt

Back 9

No duty is owed if the risk is not reasonably foreseeable, only if the risk is not far-fetched or fanciful.

Front 10

Drinkwater v Howarth

Back 10

No duty is owed if the risk is not reasonably forseeable - Insignificant risk is equal at statute and common law.

Front 11

Nettleship v Weston

Back 11

The duty to exercise reasonable care and skill is an objective measure.

Front 12

Roberts v Ramsbottom

Back 12

An unforeseeable temporary disability will generally serve to decrease the duty owed, however, some degree of duty is still owed.

Front 13

Neindorf v Junkovic

Back 13

If the risk is sufficiently minor and the cost of removing all minor risks is high enough, it is reasonable not to take action to mitigate it.

Front 14

McHale v Watson

Back 14

The duty of care owed by a child is that of a reasonable child of the same age, rather than a reasonable adult.

Front 15

Rogers v Whittaker

Back 15

A professional, when asked about potential complications, owes a duty to inform of all potential risks.

Front 16

Bolton v Stone

Back 16

A sufficiently unlikely event with a high cost of prevention is not a breach of duty if reasonable steps are taken to mitigate the risk, but not completely remove it.

Front 17

Paris v Stepney Borough Concil

Back 17

The duty owed to an already disabled person is generally greater, as they are at greater risk.

Front 18

Norman v Spiers

Back 18

If the social utility of an act is high enough, it is much less likely to breach a duty normally owed. However, breach is still possible.

Front 19

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC

Back 19

If identical damage would have occurred regardless of a breach of duty, then no negligence occurred (but-for test).

Front 20

March v Stramare

Back 20

If multiple breaches of duty were required to cause an event, both factors are considered causative and both will be liable.

Front 21

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services

Back 21

In the case of diseases where causation is difficult, materially contributing factors can sometimes be considered a legal cause.

Front 22

Tabet v Gett

Back 22

Loss of a chance of a successful medical procedure is only negligence if the chance of success would have been greater than 50% if no negligence had occurred.

Front 23

Jobling v Associated Dairies

Back 23

If a natural cause later subsumes damage caused by a negligent act, the negligent party ceases to be liable from that point on.

Front 24

Baker v Willoughby

Back 24

If a second tortuous offense subsumes damage caused by a negligent act, the negligent party remains liable.

Front 25

Nilon v Bezzina

Back 25

If a second tortuous offence is held to have caused distinct damage to the first, then both parties remain liable for all damage caused by their particular offence.

When multiple distinct harms occur, it is impossible for the latter harm to subsume the first, and each party is liable only for the harm that they caused.

Front 26

Lamb v Camden LBC

Back 26

Damage must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach to be considered caused by the breach.

Front 27

McKew v Holland, Hannen & Cubitts

Back 27

Unreasonable actions on the part of the plaintiff serve to break the casual chain - Novus actus interveniens.

Front 28

Haber v Walker

Back 28

An unreasonable act that was nonetheless a foreseeable consequence of a negligent act does not break the casual chain.

Front 29

Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Back 29

Unreasonable actions on the part of the plaintiff can still engender liability if the defendant has a duty to prevent that specific action.

Front 30

The Wagon Mound No 1

Back 30

The consequence must be a reasonable foreseeable one for liability to attach.

Front 31

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Back 31

Only the general type of damage need be foreseeable, not the specific circumstances.

Front 32

Smith v Leech Brain

Back 32

In negligence claims for personal injury, you must take your victim as you find them. If they suffer additional harm due to a unique personal weakness, you are still liable for the entirety of their injury - Thin Skull Rule.

Front 33

Thompson v ACTV

Back 33

Releasing one or more joint concurrent tortfeasor from liability does not bar action against any others.

Front 34

Lister v Romford Ice

Back 34

Contribution can amount up to 100%, completely indemnifying the party originally sued.

Front 35

Hunt v Prontonotarios

Back 35

When multiple distinct harms occur, it is impossible for the latter harm to subsume the first, and each party is liable only for the harm that they caused.

Front 36

SGIC v Oakley

Back 36

When a second injury occurs that would not have occurred but for the first injury, the first defendant is liable.

Front 37

McPherson v Whitfield

Back 37

Volenti is difficult to establish in the case of a drunk driver. Contributory negligence is more likely to apply.

Self-inflicted diminished capacity does not protect from a finding of contributory negligence if a reasonable person would have foreseen the circumstances in which they would eventually find themselves.

Front 38

Avram v Gusakoski

Back 38

Volenti does not apply when the plaintiff had only a very brief window to prevent an action before being forced to accept it.

Front 39

Mulligan v Coffs Harbour

Back 39

If a risk is sufficiently obvious, merely taking it connotes acceptance.

Front 40

Fallas v Mourlas

Back 40

Not only must the activity be dangerous, but the obvious risk must be a risk of the dangerous activity itself.

Front 41

Joslyn v Berryman

Back 41

If a plaintiff is or ought to have been aware that the driver in impaired, they are liable for contributory negligence.

Front 42

McLean v Tedman

Back 42

A person who owes a duty of care to others must take account for the possibility that one or more of the persons to whom the duty is owed might fail to take proper care for their own safety.

Front 43

Caterson v Commissioner for Railways

Back 43

In the event of an emergency they did not cause, the plaintiff is not expected to adhere to the standard of the reasonable person for actions/decisions in the heat of the moment.

Front 44

Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council

Back 44

When the plaintiff has sufficient foreknowledge of the risks, they can be deemed obvious and accepted.

Front 45

Froom v Butcher

Back 45

Failure to wear a seat belt constitutes contributory negligence, as a reasonable person would wear them to mitigate potential injury.

Front 46

Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance

Back 46

Plaintiff must substantiate any claims for economic loss from irregular income.

Front 47

Griffiths v Kerkemeier

Back 47

Plaintiffs can claim for home care provided whether or not they pay for it.

Front 48

Kriz v King

Back 48

Once the 'six hour for six months' threshold has been reached, any additional services required, even if they drop below six hours, are still covered.

Front 49

CSR v Eddy

Back 49

A person who has suffered personal injury cannot recover damages for loss of capacity to care for another family member.

Front 50

Skelton v Collins

Back 50

The payment for loss of expectation of life or permanent unconsciousness is comparatively modest.

Front 51

Queensland v Stephenson

Back 51

If you did not know and had no means of knowledge of relevant decisive material facts during the third year, and then get them later, the court can extend the time period under the Limitations of Actions Act 1974.