re: Duty of care
This will analyse whether the South Australian Country Fire Service (‘CFS’) owes a duty of care to owners of Tesla drivers who are vulnerable during a nearby bush fire.
I. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
Is it reasonably foreseeable to a reasonable South Australian fire service, that is aware of recently developed American technology that extends the travelling range of Tesla vehicles and is capable of contacting Tesla in order to trigger that technology, that failing to notify Tesla when there is an evacuation warning from bushfire at-risk areas, so that Tesla can increase the range of vehicles that might be required to evacuate from those areas, that harm may be caused to South Australian owners of Tesla vehicles?
There are …show more content…
A reasonable fire service would have superior knowledge about the location and the level of danger of a nearby bushfire. Tesla drivers may not escape if they are not able to travel a long distance away from the hazard. There is an assumption of responsibility on a reasonable fire service to ensure that people are able to adequately evacuate through whatever means possible. Therefore SA owners of Tesla vehicles are ‘totally and unavoidably dependent upon the proper performance’ of the fire service in the event of a bushfire as there travelling distance is restricted. This principle would be in a plaintiff’s …show more content…
Coherence
Coherence considers whether imposing a duty cuts across ‘other legal principles as to impair their proper application. The CFS may argue that imposing a duty may undermine the due performance of major responsibilities. Despite moral sentiments, a duty would result in ‘major changes to the law’ without the consideration of economic or procedural matters. Nonetheless it is evident that the CFS has an existing duty to ensure the safety and security of nearby residents who at risk from a nearby bushfire. Extending a duty to Tesla owners could arguably maintain and enhance this duty alongside wider community goals.
D. Certainty
The CFS could argue against a duty as it would foster an indeterminate number of potential plaintiffs, possibly all car owners. However only mainstream car model to run predominantly on batteries and the estimated number of sold models in SA is less than 100. Therefore there is an ascertainable class of persons.
III. CONCLUSION
Overall the arguments based on coherence, vulnerability and certainty heavily favour a potential plaintiff. It’s likely that a duty would be imposed and the scope would extend to owners of Tesla vehicles in
This will analyse whether the South Australian Country Fire Service (‘CFS’) owes a duty of care to owners of Tesla drivers who are vulnerable during a nearby bush fire.
I. REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY
Is it reasonably foreseeable to a reasonable South Australian fire service, that is aware of recently developed American technology that extends the travelling range of Tesla vehicles and is capable of contacting Tesla in order to trigger that technology, that failing to notify Tesla when there is an evacuation warning from bushfire at-risk areas, so that Tesla can increase the range of vehicles that might be required to evacuate from those areas, that harm may be caused to South Australian owners of Tesla vehicles?
There are …show more content…
A reasonable fire service would have superior knowledge about the location and the level of danger of a nearby bushfire. Tesla drivers may not escape if they are not able to travel a long distance away from the hazard. There is an assumption of responsibility on a reasonable fire service to ensure that people are able to adequately evacuate through whatever means possible. Therefore SA owners of Tesla vehicles are ‘totally and unavoidably dependent upon the proper performance’ of the fire service in the event of a bushfire as there travelling distance is restricted. This principle would be in a plaintiff’s …show more content…
Coherence
Coherence considers whether imposing a duty cuts across ‘other legal principles as to impair their proper application. The CFS may argue that imposing a duty may undermine the due performance of major responsibilities. Despite moral sentiments, a duty would result in ‘major changes to the law’ without the consideration of economic or procedural matters. Nonetheless it is evident that the CFS has an existing duty to ensure the safety and security of nearby residents who at risk from a nearby bushfire. Extending a duty to Tesla owners could arguably maintain and enhance this duty alongside wider community goals.
D. Certainty
The CFS could argue against a duty as it would foster an indeterminate number of potential plaintiffs, possibly all car owners. However only mainstream car model to run predominantly on batteries and the estimated number of sold models in SA is less than 100. Therefore there is an ascertainable class of persons.
III. CONCLUSION
Overall the arguments based on coherence, vulnerability and certainty heavily favour a potential plaintiff. It’s likely that a duty would be imposed and the scope would extend to owners of Tesla vehicles in