70311 Torts Notes Part 1 - Intentional Torts: 1-1 | Page 70311 Torts Notes Part 1: Intentional Torts and Nuisance Table of Contents 1 Trespass to the Person _____________________________________________________________________________ 1-3 1.1 Assault 1-3 1.1.1 Assault – Summary Elements ________________________________________________________________ 1-3 1.1.1.1 Element 1: Intentional Act or Threat by a Person ______________________________________________ 1-3 1.1.1.2 Element 2: Directly Causing _______________________________________________________________ 1-4 1.1.1.2.1 Element 2A: Threatening Behaviour that can constitute Assault___________________________________ 1-4 1.1.1.3 Element 3: A reasonable apprehension ______________________________________________________ 1-4 1.1.1.4 Element 4: Imminent harmful or offensive contact ____________________________________________ 1-5 1.1.2 Assault Damages __________________________________________________________________________ 1-5 1.2 Battery 1-5 1.2.1 Battery Summary Elements__________________________________________________________________ 1-5 1.2.2 Element 1: Intentional voluntary act of the defendant ____________________________________________ 1-6 1.2.3 Element 2: Directly causing __________________________________________________________________ 1-6 1.2.4 Element 3: Unwanted Contact with Body of Another _____________________________________________ 1-6 1.2.4.1 Other Examples_________________________________________________________________________ 1-7 1.3 False Imprisonment _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1-7 1.3.1 False Imprisonment – Summary Elements ______________________________________________________ 1-7 1.3.1.1 Voluntary act (can be psychological) intended to cause imprisonment ____________________________ 1-7 1.3.1.2 Wrongful/Unlawful ______________________________________________________________________ 1-8 1.3.1.3 Total Restraint on the liberty of the plaintiff __________________________________________________ 1-8 1.3.1.4 Reasonable means of escape ______________________________________________________________ 1-9 1.3.1.5 Complete Submission by P to the Authority of D. ______________________________________________ 1-9 1.3.1.6 Directly bought about by D (also negligent or reckless) _________________________________________ 1-9 1.4 Examples or Acts and Omissions Constituting False imprisonment _______________________________________________________ 1-9 1.5 Comparison of Trespass to Person Torts ___________________________________________________________________________ 1-10 1.7 Action on the Case for Indirect Damage _________________________________________________________________________ 1-11 1.7.1 Infliction of psychiatric injury / nervous shock __________________________________________________ 1-11 1.7.2 Physical injury inflicted by Indirect Intentional Acts _____________________________________________ 1-11 1.8 Key Cases of Intentional Torts against the person ___________________________________________________________________ 1-12 1.8.1 State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow SASC 56 [2010] ____________________________________ 1-12 1.8.2 Hutchins V Maughan (1957) 97 CLR 465. ______________________________________________________ 1-12 1.8.3 Balmain new ferry Co Ltd v Robertson [1906] HCA 83____________________________________________ 1-13 1.8.4 Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Company Limited and others [1914] UKHL 2 ___________________ 1-13 1.8.5 McHale v Watson (1964) ___________________________________________________________________ 1-13 1.8.6 Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA _______________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.7 Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205 ____________________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.8 Hutchins v Maughan (1947) ________________________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.9 Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim R 11 _____________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.10 Symes v Mahon (1922) ____________________________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.11 Scott v Shepherd (1773) 96 ER 525___________________________________________________________ 1-15 1.8.12 Williams v Milotin [1957] HCA 83. ___________________________________________________________ 1-16 1.8.13 Myer Stores v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597 __________________________________________________________ 1-16
Transcript
70311 Torts Notes Part 1 - Intentional Torts: 1-1 | P a g e
70311 Torts Notes Part 1: Intentional Torts and Nuisance
Table of Contents
1 Trespass to the Person _____________________________________________________________________________ 1-3
1.1 Assault 1-3 1.1.1 Assault – Summary Elements ________________________________________________________________ 1-3
1.1.1.1 Element 1: Intentional Act or Threat by a Person ______________________________________________ 1-3 1.1.1.2 Element 2: Directly Causing _______________________________________________________________ 1-4
1.1.1.2.1 Element 2A: Threatening Behaviour that can constitute Assault ___________________________________ 1-4 1.1.1.3 Element 3: A reasonable apprehension ______________________________________________________ 1-4 1.1.1.4 Element 4: Imminent harmful or offensive contact ____________________________________________ 1-5
1.2 Battery 1-5 1.2.1 Battery Summary Elements__________________________________________________________________ 1-5 1.2.2 Element 1: Intentional voluntary act of the defendant ____________________________________________ 1-6 1.2.3 Element 2: Directly causing __________________________________________________________________ 1-6 1.2.4 Element 3: Unwanted Contact with Body of Another _____________________________________________ 1-6
1.2.4.1 Other Examples_________________________________________________________________________ 1-7
1.3.1.1 Voluntary act (can be psychological) intended to cause imprisonment ____________________________ 1-7 1.3.1.2 Wrongful/Unlawful ______________________________________________________________________ 1-8 1.3.1.3 Total Restraint on the liberty of the plaintiff __________________________________________________ 1-8 1.3.1.4 Reasonable means of escape ______________________________________________________________ 1-9 1.3.1.5 Complete Submission by P to the Authority of D. ______________________________________________ 1-9 1.3.1.6 Directly bought about by D (also negligent or reckless) _________________________________________ 1-9
1.4 Examples or Acts and Omissions Constituting False imprisonment _______________________________________________________ 1-9
1.5 Comparison of Trespass to Person Torts ___________________________________________________________________________ 1-10
1.7 Action on the Case for Indirect Damage _________________________________________________________________________ 1-11 1.7.1 Infliction of psychiatric injury / nervous shock __________________________________________________ 1-11 1.7.2 Physical injury inflicted by Indirect Intentional Acts _____________________________________________ 1-11
1.8 Key Cases of Intentional Torts against the person ___________________________________________________________________ 1-12 1.8.1 State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow SASC 56 [2010] ____________________________________ 1-12 1.8.2 Hutchins V Maughan (1957) 97 CLR 465. ______________________________________________________ 1-12 1.8.3 Balmain new ferry Co Ltd v Robertson [1906] HCA 83____________________________________________ 1-13 1.8.4 Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Company Limited and others [1914] UKHL 2 ___________________ 1-13 1.8.5 McHale v Watson (1964) ___________________________________________________________________ 1-13 1.8.6 Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA _______________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.7 Rozsa v Samuels [1969] SASR 205 ____________________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.8 Hutchins v Maughan (1947) ________________________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.9 Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim R 11 _____________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.10 Symes v Mahon (1922) ____________________________________________________________________ 1-14 1.8.11 Scott v Shepherd (1773) 96 ER 525 ___________________________________________________________ 1-15 1.8.12 Williams v Milotin [1957] HCA 83. ___________________________________________________________ 1-16 1.8.13 Myer Stores v Soo [1991] 2 VR 597 __________________________________________________________ 1-16
70311 Torts Notes Part 1 - Intentional Torts: 1-2 | P a g e
2 Trespass to Land _________________________________________________________________________________ 2-18
2.1 Elements _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2-18 2.1.1 Element 1: Act must be unauthorised ________________________________________________________ 2-18
2.2 Element 2: Act must be Voluntary ________________________________________________________________________________ 2-19
2.3 Element 3: Direct Physical Interference ____________________________________________________________________________ 2-19
2.4 Element 4: With Plaintiff’s Exclusive Possession _____________________________________________________________________ 2-19
2.5 Element 5: Of Land _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2-20
2.6 Examples of Land Trespass ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-20
2.7 Actionable per se - no proof of damage required. ___________________________________________________________________ 2-21
2.9 Key Land Trespass Cases ________________________________________________________________________________________ 2-21 2.9.1 Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse co ltd (1937) 56 CLR 605. __________________________________________ 2-21 2.9.2 Wilson v New South Wales (2010) 278 alr 74. __________________________________________________ 2-21 2.9.3 Bond v Kelly (1873) 4 ajr 153 _______________________________________________________________ 2-21 2.9.4 Healing Proprietary Limited v English electric proprietary limited (1968) 121 c l r 584 __________________ 2-21 2.9.5 Lincoln hunt Australia Proprietary Ltd v Willesee (1986) NSWSC ___________________________________ 2-21 2.9.6 Halliday V Nevill (1984) HCA ________________________________________________________________ 2-22 2.9.7 Plenty v Dillon (1991) HCA _________________________________________________________________ 2-22 2.9.8 Rinsdale Proprietary Limited v ABC (1993) _____________________________________________________ 2-22 2.9.9 Coco v R (1994) HCA ______________________________________________________________________ 2-22 2.9.10 Kuru v New South Wales (2008) HCA _________________________________________________________ 2-22
3 Defences to Intentional Torts ______________________________________________________________________ 3-23
3.2 Self Defence __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3-23 3.2.1 Common Law v CLA _______________________________________________________________________ 3-23 3.2.2 CLA s 51 No civil liability for acts in self-defence ________________________________________________ 3-24
4.1 Definition of Private Nuisance ___________________________________________________________________________________ 4-27
4.2 Relationship to Trespass to Land and Negligence ____________________________________________________________________ 4-27
4.3 Summary Elements of Private Nuisance ___________________________________________________________________________ 4-27 4.3.1 Elements 1 and 2 : Substantial Interference with P enjoyment of Land ______________________________ 4-28 4.3.2 Title to Sue ______________________________________________________________________________ 4-28 4.3.3 Protected Rights _________________________________________________________________________ 4-29 4.3.4 Must be damage _________________________________________________________________________ 4-29 4.3.5 Test of Reasonableness – Defence onus on defendant ___________________________________________ 4-30 4.3.6 Who is Liable ____________________________________________________________________________ 4-31
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 1-1 | P a g e
2 Duty of Care ______________________________________________________________________________ 2-8
2.1 Situations to consider ______________________________________________________________________________ 2-8 Situation 1: Established Duty Categories ___________________________________________________ 2-8 Situation 2: No Duty of Care _____________________________________________________________ 2-9 Situation 3: Establishing Duty in Novel Cases _______________________________________________ 2-10
2.2 Key Cases _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2-12 Champan v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 ___________________________________________________ 2-12 Chester v Waverley Corporation (1939) 62 CLR _____________________________________________ 2-12 Levi v. Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 48 _____________________________________ 2-12 Haley v London Electricity Board [1964]2QB 121; ___________________________________________ 2-12 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 ____________________________________________ 2-12 Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 _________________________________________________________ 2-12 Bourhill v Young (1984) AC 92 ___________________________________________________________ 2-13 C.A.L No 14 Pty LTD v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 30 ______________________ 2-13 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 __________________________________________ 2-14
3 BREACH OF DUTY of CARE __________________________________________________________________ 3-15
3.1 Step 1: Correct Identification of actual risk is crucial ____________________________________________________ 3-15
3.2 Standard of Care _________________________________________________________________________________ 3-15
3.3 PART 1A – NEGLIGENCE: Duty of care 5B. General principles ______________________________________________ 3-15 5B(1)(a): Foreseeable Risk: _____________________________________________________________ 3-16
3.3.1.1 Real risk: _________________________________________________________________________ 3-16 3.3.1.2 Not far-fetched or fanciful: ___________________________________________________________ 3-16 3.3.1.3 An unlikely/small risk – can still be reasonably foreseeable _________________________________ 3-16 3.3.1.4 Foreseeability includes foreseeability that others may be negligent __________________________ 3-16
5B(1)(b): risk ‘not insignificant’ __________________________________________________________ 3-16 3.3.2.1 CLA Extends foreseeable and is More demanding – but not by much _________________________ 3-16 3.3.2.2 Timing must be foreseeable at the time ______________________________________________ 3-17
5B(1)(c) When precautions against foreseeable & not insignificant risk are to be taken ____________ 3-17 3.3.3.1 Who is the Reasonable person? _______________________________________________________ 3-17
5B (2) Considerations In determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions ___ 3-19 3.3.4.1 5B (2) (a) probability that harm would occur if care were not taken __________________________ 3-19 3.3.4.2 5B (2) (b) the likely seriousness of the harm _____________________________________________ 3-19 3.3.4.3 5B (2) (c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm _________________________ 3-19 3.3.4.4 5B (2) (d) social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm. ___________________________ 3-20
5C Other principles __________________________________________________________________ 3-20
3.4 Key Cases _______________________________________________________________________________________ 3-21 Shoalhaven City Council v Pender [2013] NSWCA 210 at [7]___________________________________ 3-21 Wyong Shire v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 ___________________________________________________ 3-21 New South Wales v Fahy (2007) 236 ALR 406 ______________________________________________ 3-21 Imbree v McNeilly & Anor [2006] NSWSC 680 ______________________________________________ 3-22
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 1-2 | P a g e
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 ___________________________________________________________ 3-22 McHale v Watson (1964) _______________________________________________________________ 3-22 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42 _________________________________ 3-23 Rogers v Whittaker ___________________________________________________________________ 3-23
4.1 CLA 5D General principles _________________________________________________________________________ 4-24
4.2 s 5D(1) (a) Factual Causation ________________________________________________________________________ 4-24 But-for test - A necessary condition ______________________________________________________ 4-24
4.2.1.1 Not enough that it might have been avoided ____________________________________________ 4-24 4.2.1.2 No Policy consideration/value judgements here theysit in 2nd limb _______________________ 4-25 4.2.1.3 ‘But for’ is Necessary but not sufficient _________________________________________________ 4-25
Factual causation subjective (5D(3) : Relevant to Failure to warn ______________________________ 4-25
4.3 s 5D(1) (b) Scope of Liability ________________________________________________________________________ 4-25 S 5D(1) (b) Normative Question of Law based on precedent __________________________________ 4-25
4.3.1.1 A policy question: If P would have accepted risk no liability ______________________________ 4-25 4.3.1.2 Current favour is the Purpose approach ________________________________________________ 4-26 4.3.1.3 Policy question: Value judgment related to legal principles not value judgments per se __________ 4-26
4.4 Intervening causes: Novus Actus Interveniens (NOI) ____________________________________________________ 4-26 An intervening event is not definitive ____________________________________________________ 4-26
4.4.1.1 Voluntary acts often break chain: not all will qualify ____________________________________ 4-26 4.4.1.2 The ‘very risk’ created by the defendant is not NOI _______________________________________ 4-27 4.4.1.3 Negligent acts of third party __________________________________________________________ 4-27 4.4.1.4 Subsequent ‘negligent’ or unfortunate medical treatment _________________________________ 4-27 4.4.1.5 IF D breach has generated/increased risk of later event + it happens in ordinary course or it the defendant owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from the later event no break ________________________ 4-27 4.4.1.6 Coincidence: causally unrelated to negligent act will be NOI ________________________________ 4-28
4.5 Scope in Novel Cases: s 5D (1) (b) in light of s 5D(4) _____________________________________________________ 4-28 Exceptional Cases section 5D (2) ________________________________________________________ 4-28
4.5.1.1 Exceptional cases where ‘but for’ cannot be established: __________________________________ 4-28
4.6 CLA 5E Onus of proof ______________________________________________________________________________ 4-29
4.7 Res Ipsa Loquitur used ONLY when cause unknown _________________________________________________ 4-29 Element 1: D was in Exclusive control of the situation _______________________________________ 4-30 Element 2: Accident would not normally happen but for negligence ____________________________ 4-30 Element 3: The cause of the accident is not known __________________________________________ 4-30 Effect of res ipsa loquitur ______________________________________________________________ 4-30
4.8 Key Cases _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4-31 Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak: _______________________________________________________ 4-31 Bennett v Minister for Community Welfare (1992) __________________________________________ 4-31 Strong v Woolworths: _________________________________________________________________ 4-31 Medlin v Walker: _____________________________________________________________________ 4-32 Holloway v McFeeters _________________________________________________________________ 4-32 March v Stramare Pty Ltd: _____________________________________________________________ 4-32 Haber v Walker (1963) ________________________________________________________________ 4-32 Wallace v Kam _______________________________________________________________________ 4-33 Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd ___________________________________________________ 4-33
Travel Compensation Fund v Robert Tambree (t/as R Tambree & Assocs) _______________________ 4-34
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 1-3 | P a g e
5.1 Impact of 5D(4) ‘whether or not and why’; Policy Considerations __________________________________________ 5-36
5.2 Type of Harm must be Reasonable Foreseeable ________________________________________________________ 5-36 Must be same Kind of Harm – Broad view of Kind of harm ____________________________________ 5-37
Where unusual injury or sequence of events, manner is relevant (narrower view) ______________ 5-38
5.4 Key Cases _______________________________________________________________________________________ 5-39 The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961) ________________________________________________________ 5-39 The Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967) ________________________________________________________ 5-39 Mt Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) ____________________________________________________________ 5-39 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) _________________________________________________________ 5-39 Nader v UTA (1985) ___________________________________________________________________ 5-40 Kavanagh v Akhtar (1999) [NSW Ct of Appeal] _____________________________________________ 5-40 Commonwealth v McLean (1997) ________________________________________________________ 5-40 Doughty v Turner Manufacturing (1964) [English Ct of Appeal] ________________________________ 5-40 Rowe v McCartney (1976) ______________________________________________________________ 5-40
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 3 All ER 409 __________________________________ 5-41
6 Special Duty of Care Categories ______________________________________________________________ 6-42
6.2 The Unborn Child _________________________________________________________________________________ 6-42 Negligence Before Conception __________________________________________________________ 6-42 Negligence Ex Utero __________________________________________________________________ 6-43 In utero ____________________________________________________________________________ 6-43 Wrongful birth ______________________________________________________________________ 6-43
6.2.4.1 “Wrongful birth” at CL (really “negligent advice” says HCA) ______________________________ 6-44 Wrongful life: Unmaintainable in Australia _______________________________________________ 6-44
6.3 Product Liability: Duty to Consumers _________________________________________________________________ 6-45 Summary Elements of manufacturer DOC _________________________________________________ 6-46
6.4 Occupiers Liability ________________________________________________________________________________ 6-46 Positive steps to control (criminals) not required ___________________________________________ 6-46 Influenced by relevant statutes distinguished Modbury ___________________________________ 6-47 Practical realties v higher standard 4 commercial purposes ___________________________________ 6-47
6.5 Employers duty to Employees’ ______________________________________________________________________ 6-47 Calculus for Employers DOC ____________________________________________________________ 6-47 DoC Includes enforcement of safety precautions ___________________________________________ 6-48 More personal responsibility in 21st Century _______________________________________________ 6-48 Does not extend to mental harm unless reasonably foreseeable _______________________________ 6-48 Independent contractors not like employees of principal _____________________________________ 6-49
6.6 Mental Harm ____________________________________________________________________________________ 6-49 s32 Mental harm-duty of care __________________________________________________________ 6-49 Pure Mental Harm Duty of Care – Key is foreseeability _______________________________________ 6-50
6.6.2.1 Recognized psychiatric illness ________________________________________________________ 6-50 6.6.2.2 Foreseeability person of normal fortitude will suffer RSI ___________________________________ 6-50 6.6.2.3 Circumstances of case – not preconditions but RF of person or normal fortitude suffering RSI ____ 6-51 6.6.2.4 Limitations for pure mental harm damages for secondary victims ___________________________ 6-53
6.7 Summary of Key Cases_____________________________________________________________________________ 6-53 Tame v NSW (2002) HCA; ______________________________________________________________ 6-53 Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) HCA ___________________________________________ 6-53
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 1-4 | P a g e
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) HCA ____________________________________________________________ 6-54 Wicks v State Rail Authority of NSW (2010) HCA ____________________________________________ 6-54 Lynch v Lynch (1991) __________________________________________________________________ 6-54 X and Y v Pal (1991) 12 NSWLR 26 _______________________________________________________ 6-54 Watt v Rama [1972] ___________________________________________________________________ 6-55 Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987) ________________________________________________ 6-55 G and M v Armellin [2008] ACTSC 68 _____________________________________________________ 6-55
Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1 ___________________________________________________ 6-56 CES v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd (1995) NSWLR 47 ______________________________________ 6-56 Analysis of Harriton V Stephens (2006) HCA _______________________________________________ 6-57
7.1 Summary of DEFENCES TO NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS _______________________________________________________ 7-58
7.2 Contributory Negligence ___________________________________________________________________________ 7-58 Basis is Failure to take Reasonable care for own safety ______________________________________ 7-58 CN: Partial defence under Apportionment Legisl. ___________________________________________ 7-58
7.2.2.1 Just and equitable Apportionment ____________________________________________________ 7-59 CN Can be a Complete Defence under Civil Liability Legisl. ____________________________________ 7-59 Standard of Care at Common Law _______________________________________________________ 7-60 Proving Contributory Negligence under CLA _______________________________________________ 7-60
7.2.5.1 Statutory Standard of Care ___________________________________________________________ 7-61 7.2.5.2 Contributory negligence is a Finding of Fact _____________________________________________ 7-61 7.2.5.3 The Reasonable Person: same as negligence ____________________________________________ 7-61 7.2.5.4 Causation & Scope of liability: was damage reasonably foreseeable & contributed to by plaintiff’s 7-62 7.2.5.5 Statutory Causation ________________________________________________________________ 7-63
7.5 Voluntary Assumption of Risk _______________________________________________________________________ 7-63
7.6 Obvious Risk – Statutory Defence –No duty to warn ____________________________________________________ 7-65 Obviousness: Part of Breach of Duty Inquiry BUT doesn’t Indemnify against It ____________________ 7-66 Definition of Obvious Risk ______________________________________________________________ 7-66
7.7 Inherent Risks: Complete Defence – a question of Fact __________________________________________________ 7-67
7.8 Recreational and Sporting Activities _________________________________________________________________ 7-67
7.9 Good Samaritans part 8 Civil Liability Act: _____________________________________________________________ 7-68
7.11 Other defences: __________________________________________________________________________________ 7-68
7.12 Key Cases _______________________________________________________________________________________ 7-68 Fallas v Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32 _______________________________________________________ 7-68 Falvo v Australian Oztag Sports Association and Anor 2006 NSWCA 17 __________________________ 7-69 Scanlon v American Cigarette Co (overseas) Pty Ltd (No.3) (1987) ______________________________ 7-69 Rootes v Shelton (1967) _______________________________________________________________ 7-70 Pennington v Norris (1956) (HC) _________________________________________________________ 7-70 Caterson v Commissioner for Railways (1973) ______________________________________________ 7-70 Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA 34; 198 ALR 137 ____________________________________________ 7-70 Russell v Edwards [2006] NSWCA 19 _____________________________________________________ 7-71
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 1-5 | P a g e
8 Negligently Caused Pure Economic Loss _______________________________________________________ 8-72
8.1 Policy Considerations _____________________________________________________________________________ 8-72 Indeterminate Liability ________________________________________________________________ 8-72 Incongruence with Contract Law ________________________________________________________ 8-72 Protection of Competition + Legitimate Commercial Activity __________________________________ 8-72 Limitations __________________________________________________________________________ 8-73
8.2 Negligent Misstatements __________________________________________________________________________ 8-73 Defendant knows (or ought to know) it will be relied upon ___________________________________ 8-73 Special skill not necessary Information = Advice __________________________________________ 8-74 Reasonable reliance in all the circumstances - essential ______________________________________ 8-74
8.2.3.1 Auditors: owe no DOC to third parties who rely on their info _______________________________ 8-75 Vulnerability of Clients ________________________________________________________________ 8-75 Disclaimers and Assumptions of Liability __________________________________________________ 8-75
8.3 Negligent Acts Causing Pure Economic Loss ___________________________________________________________ 8-76 History: Assumption of Responsibility and Reliance _________________________________________ 8-76 Salient Features Current Approach ____________________________________________________ 8-76
8.5 Key Cases _______________________________________________________________________________________ 8-77 San Sebastian v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (1986) __ 8-77 Shaddock v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981) __________________________________________ 8-77 Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) HCA -salient features _________________________________________ 8-78 Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller & Partners [1964] UK ______________________________________ 8-79 MLC Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1969) HCA _________________________________________________ 8-79 Reynolds v Katoomba RSL Club Ltd (2001) NSWCA __________________________________________ 8-79 Hawkins v Clayton (1988) HCA __________________________________________________________ 8-80 Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge ‘Willemstad’ (1976) ___________________________________ 8-80 Hill (t/a R. F. Hill Associates) v Van Erp (1997) HCA __________________________________________ 8-80
Dale v Veda Advantage Info Services + Solutions Ltd (2009) FC ________________________________ 8-80 Tepko Pty Ltd v The Water Board (2001) HCA ______________________________________________ 8-81 Bryan v Maloney (1995) HCA ___________________________________________________________ 8-81 Makawe Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (2009) NSWCA _____________________________________ 8-81 Esanda Corp Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) HCA ____________________________________ 8-82 Barclay v Penberthy [2012] HCA: ________________________________________________________ 8-82 Brookfield Multiplex v Owners Corp. Strata Plan [2014] HCA __________________________________ 8-83 Dansar ty Ltd v Byron Shire Council [2014] NSWCA __________________________________________ 8-83 Western Districts Developments and Turnpike Lane v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2009] NSWCA ___ 8-83 Marsh v Baxter [2015] WASCA __________________________________________________________ 8-83 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2003] VSC _____________________________________ 8-84 Woolcock Street Investments v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) HCA _____________________________________ 8-84
9.2.1.1 Relevant Factor to establish DoC at Common Law ________________________________________ 9-86 Step 5 : Establish Breach _______________________________________________________________ 9-88
9.2.2.1 Step 5 a) So unreasonable Test in CLA 43(2) or CLA s 43A(3) ________________________________ 9-88 9.2.2.2 Step 5 b) If nonfeasance AND function is to prohibit or regulate Plaintiff must have standing 9-88 9.2.2.3 Step 5 c) Consider additional policy considerations in CLA s 42 ______________________________ 9-88 9.2.2.4 Step 5 d) If a Road Authority complete defence where no knowledge or risk re road work _____ 9-89 9.2.2.5 Consider Special Statutory Powers defence _____________________________________________ 9-89
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 1-6 | P a g e
9.3 Key Cases _______________________________________________________________________________________ 9-89 North Sydney Council v Roman __________________________________________________________ 9-89 Graham Barclay Oysters v Ryan (2002) HCA _______________________________________________ 9-90 Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) _____________________________________________________ 9-90 Crimmins v Australian Stevedoring Industry (1999) _________________________________________ 9-91 Romeo v Conservation Commission ______________________________________________________ 9-91 Presland v Hunter Area Health Service ____________________________________________________ 9-91 Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman ______________________________________________________ 9-92 Nader v Urban Transport Authority of NSW _______________________________________________ 9-92 Blacktown City Council v Hocking ________________________________________________________ 9-92
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v RTA [2010] _______________________________________________ 9-92 RTA of NSW v Refrigerated Roadways [2009] ______________________________________________ 9-92
12.4 CLA 3C operates to exclude or limit vicarious liability __________________________________________________ 12-95
12.5 Employer and Employee __________________________________________________________________________ 12-95 Must be an employee – But who is an employee? _________________________________________ 12-95 Must be acting in the course of employment _____________________________________________ 12-96 Criminal Acts: Must be sufficient connection ______________________________________________ 12-98
12.5.3.1 Sexual Battery of a Minor: ‘Relevant Approach’ _________________________________________ 12-98 12.5.3.2 Child Sexual Assault _______________________________________________________________ 12-98
12.6 Principal and Agent ______________________________________________________________________________ 12-99
12.7 Key Cases ______________________________________________________________________________________ 12-99 DEATONS V FLEW (1949) 79 CLR 370 ____________________________________________________ 12-99 Smith v Leurs (1945) _________________________________________________________________ 12-99
13.1 Breach of Non-Delegable DoC Vicarious Liability ___________________________________________________ 13-100
13.2 Hospital and Private Patient ______________________________________________________________________ 13-100
13.3 School Authority and Pupil _______________________________________________________________________ 13-101
13.4 Occupier Creating danger to neighboring land users __________________________________________________ 13-101
13.5 Road Authority and User _________________________________________________________________________ 13-101
13.6 Employer and Employee _________________________________________________________________________ 13-101
13.7 Key Cases _____________________________________________________________________________________ 13-101 STEVENS V BRODRIBB SAWMILLING CO PTY LTD (1986) ____________________________________ 13-101 NSW V LEPORE (2003) _______________________________________________________________ 13-102 Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44; 207 CLR 21 __________________________________________ 13-102 Hargrave v Goldman (1963) 110 CLR 40 _________________________________________________ 13-102
14 Contribution among Tortfeasors ___________________________________________________________ 14-103
14.1 Joint _________________________________________________________________________________________ 14-103 Contribution legislation: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 s 5: _________________ 14-103
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 1-7 | P a g e
CLA part 4: applies to apportionment claims s 34: ________________________________________ 14-104
14.2 Key Cases _____________________________________________________________________________________ 14-104 NSW v Ibbett (2006) HCA ____________________________________________________________ 14-104 Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) HCA ______________________________________________________ 14-104 Sweeney v Boylan Nomineees t/as Quirks Refrigeration (2003) HCA __________________________ 14-105 Stevens v Brodribb River Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1968) HCA _________________________________ 14-105 Bugge v Brown (1919) HCA ___________________________________________________________ 14-105 Deatons Pty LTD v Flew (1949) HCA ____________________________________________________ 14-105 NSW v Lepore (2003) HCA ____________________________________________________________ 14-105
15 Statutory Regimes relating to personal injury in NSW – Workers Compensation, Motor Accidents ______ 15-106
15.1 Workers compensation legislation in nsw was significantly amended in 2001. _____________________________ 15-106
15.2 Motor accidents compensation in NSW _____________________________________________________________ 15-108
16 Death Claims ___________________________________________________________________________ 16-112
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 2-8 | P a g e
1 Negligence Overview To succeed in a claim of negligence, a plaintiff will have to prove all four elements of the tort:
• Duty: That the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
• Breach: That the defendant has breached that duty of care by negligent conduct; and • Causation: That the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff actual damage
• Damage: the type of damage suffered is not too remote from the defendant’ the action will fail if they can’t succeed in establishing all of them.
2 Duty of Care Whether or not a duty of care exists is regarded as a question of law.
1. Determine if there is settle law as to a duty of care
2. If not (and not a special duty category, where specific considerations may apply) apply current approach a. Reasonable Foreseeability (mandatory) b. Salient Features Approach/Analysis
No duty of care THEN Even If P injured by D negligence D not liable. D is only liable in negligence to a person to whom he owes a duty of care Heaven v Pender (1883)
2.1 Situations to consider Three types of situations that may occur: 1. When there is settled law that a duty of care exists 2. When there is settled law that a duty of care does not exist 3. There is no settled law on whether a duty of care exists or does not exist
Situation 1: Established Duty Categories When the relationship falls into an established duty of care category provided that the injury occurred within the scope of that duty this element will not be an issue
1. Doctor/dentist v patient
2. Employers to employees- safe system of work
3. Hospital v patient
4. Manufacturer and consumer
5. Motorist v other highway users ANALAGOUS to other activities, like jet ski riding etc
6. Service providers
7. Occupier of land to lawful entrants
8. Licensed premises to plaintiffs –them from known risks and anti social behaviour
9. School v pupil - esp. related to supervision
10. Sports player/sports company v players
11. Parents possess NO DUTY TO SUPERVISE a child
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) HCA
Wilson v Clyde Kondis v State
Transport Authority (1984) HCA
Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
[1980] NSWLR
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
March v Stramare (1991) HCA
\Woods v Multi-Sport
Australian Safeways Stores v Zaluzna (1987)
HCA
Adeels Palace
Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) HCA
Woods v Multisport
Robertson v Swincer Smithv Leurs
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 2-9 | P a g e
12. Parents may owe a duty to protect their children from 3rd parties Court indicated it would be “unrealistic” to expect parents to supervise their children/impose such a duty
13. Prison officers – if prisoners escape- duty to protect community members in the immediate vicinity
14. Prison officers – if prisoner(s) at risk
15. Doctors may be held liable for negligent acts or omissions affecting a child not yet conceived. – current and future foetuses
16. Doctors to P during the IVF treatment of the mother after child was born with cerebral thrombosis Only extends to to protect the child when its in IVF/ in the mother’s womb; not to advise about termination, as this would give rise to conflicting, “mutually inconsistent” duties
17. Mothers to their foetuses when driving
Dorset Yacht Club
Budjuso
X and Y
Waller v James
Lynch v Lynch
Situation 2: No Duty of Care policy considerations have been decisive in denying a duty of care in certain case categories:
1. Armed Services on active duty where damage is caused by armed services in/during active engagement there
can be no duty of care owed as it would be impractical to impose during wartime
2. Auditors to 3rd parties (not to clients) Economic factor: Would increase the cost of auditing services, the premiums
payable to auditors, thereby decreasing availability of auditor services Conflicting duties - Statutory regimes already give rise to civil/criminal liability –
conflicting duties
3. Child protection agencies Here, court held no duty of care (policy reasons) – to find a duty would cut
across other legal areas (defamation), would be incompatible with other duties (best interests of child), and to avoid potential indeterminacy of liability.
4. Immunity of advocates from negligence – In the performance of court work due to conflict between the practitioners
duty to the court and duty to the client and the opening of judicial decisions Settlements not included
5. Police in criminal investigations $ factor (priority of deployment resources) No duty, as it would be inappropriate to subject this type of area to duty of care
it would change the way they investigate crimes
6. Police and victims of crime
7. Wrongful life cases
8. Parents do not owe a general duty of supervision to a child
Shaw Savill & Albion Co Ltd v
Commonwealth(1940); Mulcahy v Ministry of
Defence (1996)
Esanda v Peat
Marwick Hungerfords
Sullivan v Moody (2001) HCA
D’Orta v Victoria Legal
Aid Giannarelli v Wraith;
Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (1980)
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire UK
Osman v Ferguson (1993)
Harriton v Stephens
Robertson v Swinar (1989)
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 2-10 | P a g e
Situation 3: Establishing Duty in Novel Cases In novel case the approach is to establish
1. Reasonable Foreseeability (mandatory) 2. Salient Features Approach/Analysis
2.1.3.1 Reasonable Foreseeability Reasonable Foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff or to a class of persons of which P is a
member is a necessary condition of the existence of a duty of care where no settled law Reasonable foreseeable is essential but not sufficient Questions to ask are Who is the person to whom a duty is owed (who is my neighbour?)
Not unlikely to occur- consequence of same general character All that must be foreseeable, or “not unlikely to occur” is that a “consequence of
the same general character” (type of harm) as that which eventuated Plaintiff foreseeable as ‘class of persons’ Chapman negligently driving was catapulted out of his car as a result of collision.
Doctor stopped to help and was killed by Hearse HC did not accept the argument that Chapman could not have foreseen the
precise sequence of events that led to Cherry’s death It was enough that Chapman should have foreseen as a more general matter
that a carelessly caused collision might lead to someone trying to help those that were injured by the roadway at some risk to themselves
Both drivers were held to owe Doctor Cherry a duty of care as in both cases Cherry was considered to come within a reasonably foreseeable class of persons
HC went on the explain that the plaintiff does not have to show that the precise manner in which his injuries were sustained was reasonably foreseeable
What is required to be shown is that it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct might cause harm to a particular class of persons and that particular class of person includes the plaintiff
Sullivan v Moody Chapman v Hearse
Jaensch v Coffey
(1984) HCA
Donoghue v Stevenson
Chapman v Hearse
Chapman v Hearse
2.1.3.1.1 Neighbour Test still relevant “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - the 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 into question” Lord Aitkin
It is sufficient to say that no duty of care can arise in the absence of a relationship of
neighbourhood
Donoghue v Stevenson
Graham Barclay Oysters
70311 Torts Notes Part 2 – Negligence: 2-11 | P a g e
2.1.3.2 Salient Features Approach The favoured test used to supplement the essential (but insufficient) consideration of reasonable foreseeability is the incremental, salient- feature focused approach, – which uses analogy to confirm the legal/factual link between the duty owed by the D to the P
1. Could the Defendant reasonably have foreseen that actions would give rise to harm to a class of persons including the plaintiff?
2. Incremental Development in novel or difficult cases. 3. Is the imposition of a duty of care justified, based on “salient features” in other
cases in a similar category? 4. Some important “salient features” are:
(i) Def’s control over situation giving rise to risk; (ii) Plaintiff’s vulnerability to harm; (iii) Any assumption of responsibility of Def to protect plaintiff; (iv) Knowledge of D of situation giving rise to risk (v) Any policy considerations or competing duties
Factors to consider: 1. Conflict of duties: will the finding of a duty conflict with an already existing duty? 2. Conflict of laws: is there better suited area of law under which to bring action 3. Illegality: on the part of the P (Gala v Preston) 4. Floodgates: would a finding of a duty of care in this case risk flooding the courts
with claims of liability?
Also look at: 1. Degree of control that D could exercise over the cause of harm 2. Vulnerability of P 3. Whether recognition of duty of care would interfere with coherence of the law
What constitutes the duty of care under Australian law and how we should interpret the salient feature approach
1. Foreseeability of harm 2. Nature of the harm alleged 3. Degree and nature of control able to be exercised by the D to avoid harm 4. Degree of vulnerability of P 5. Degree of reliance placed by P on D 6. Any assumption of responsibility by D 7. Proximity or nearness in a physical, temporal or relational sense of the P to the D 8. 5he existence or otherwise of a category of relationship between the D and the P
or a person closely connected with the P 9. The nature of the activity undertaken by D 10. The nature or degree of the hazard liable to be caused by the defendant’s conduct
or the activity or substance controlled by the D 11. Knowledge (actual or constructive) by the D that conduct will cause harm to the P 12. Any potential indeterminacy of liability 13. Nature and consequences on any action that could have been taken to avoid harm 14. The extent of imposition on the autonomy or freedom of individuals including the
right to purse one’s own interest 15. The existence of conflicting duties arising from other principles of law or statute 16. Consistency with the terms, scope and purpose of any relevant statute 17. Desirability of and in some need to conformity of the structure and fabric of the
