Tort Law

Card Set Information

Author:
lia153
ID:
223113
Filename:
Tort Law
Updated:
2013-06-09 22:46:20
Tags:
tort law pbl
Folders:

Description:
Tort law
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user lia153 on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Donoghue v Stevenson
    • tort, negligence, duty of care, manufacturer's duty to consumer, product liability
    • Facts: bought ginger beer, ice-cream, decomposed snail - shock, ill. Sued manufacturer for damages in negligence. Basis - supplied contaminated food causing harm to her.
    • Issue: Did he owe her duty of care?
    • Decision: Yes.
    • Reason: reasonably foreseeable. Knowledge that absence of reasonable care in preparation/putting up of products will result in injury to consumer's life/property - owes duty to consumer to take reasonable care.
  2. Waverley Council v Ferreira
    • tort, negligence, breach of duty of care, standard of care, statutory criteria
    • Facts: child climbed onto roof, sat on skylight, collapsed, died. Father suffered depression.  Not disputed - council owed father duty of care - should have foreseen that parent might suffer mental harm if child died due to this.
    • Issue: Was was content of duty of care owed? Had council acted in accordance with required standard of care?
    • Decision: Under both common law, Civil Liability Act 2002 - defendant must do what a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would do to prevent forseeable harm. Council failed.
    • Reason: Civil Liability Act - person negligent if:
    • a) risk foreseeable
    • b) risk not insignificant
    • c) in circumstances, reasonable person in person's position would have taken precautions.
    • Factors - probability of harm, likelihood of it occurring, likely seriousness of harm, difficulty of preventing, social utility of risk.
  3. Perre v Apand Pty Ltd
    • tort, negligence, duty of care, economic loss
    • Facts: WA govnt prohibited import of potatoes grown anywhere within 20 km of outbreak of potato disease. Perre's neighbour got it from Apand's seeds - knew was prone to disease, unsuitable for seed production.
    • Issue: Perre suffered purely economic harm. Did Apand owe Perre a duty of care?
    • Decision: Yes.
    • Reason: "show that plaintiff & defendant in relationship - plaintiff vulnerable, dependent, powerless; defendant position of control, power".
    • Perre:
    • 1) limited class of identifiable persons who might suffer harm
    • 2) dependent on Apand acting responsibly
    • 3) Apand aware of risk and vulnerability, easily forsee potential harm.
  4. Woolcock Street Investments v CDG
    • tort, negligence, duty of care, purely economic harm, "vulnerability"
    • Facts: CDG - consulting engineers, designed foundations for warehouse. Owner of land decided against doing soil test. Complex sold to Woolcock, issues with building. 
    • Woolcock alleged CDG owed it a duty of care to avoid economic loss - failure to design adequate foundations.
    • Issue: Did CDG owe Woolrock a duty of care?
    • Decision: No.
    • Reason: "Vulnerability" - plaintiff's inability to protect itself. Woolcock could have taken independent steps to avoid risk of harm - e.g. getting building inspected before buying.
  5. Shaddock & Associates v Parramatta City Council
    • tort, negligence, duty of care, liability for misstatements causing purely economic harm
    • Facts: Shaddock phoned council to ask if any road widening proposals, sent certificate from council saying no. Actually wrong. Shaddock suffered financial loss.
    • Issue: Did council owe Shaddock duty of care when providing information?
    • Decision: No duty of care from phone advice - informal. But: duty of care from advice given in written certificate.
    • Reason: No duty to take reasonable care that advice/info correct unless:
    • - knows or ought to know, other relies on him to take such reasonable care
    • - other may act in reliance on advice/info given
  6. Rogers v Whitaker
    • tort; negligence; duty of care; breach of duty of care; relevance of defendant's specialist skills
    • Facts: Whitaker was advised about operation on blind eye, not warned about risks, developed condition, both eyes blind.
    • Issue: Had the defendant, a specialist ophthalmic surgeon, breached the duty of care that he owed his patient?
    • Decision: Yes. His DoC required him to warn patient of possible risks - failed to do so.
  7. Hawkins v Clayton
    • tort; negligence; duty of care; liability of professionals
    • Facts: Clayton - solicitor, did not contact Hawkins until 6 years after Braiser died. House disrepair, worth much less.
    • Issue: Was Clayton liable in negligence for delay in contacting plaintiff?
    • Decision: Yes.
    • Reason: Solicitor has duty to Hawkins to find him without delay, inform. Hawkins entitled to recover damages to compensate for economic loss.
  8. Imbree v McNeilly
    • tort; negligence; breach of duty of care; determining standard of care; contributory negligence
    • Facts: Imbree, adult driver, allowed McNeilly, 16 yr old unlicenced driver to drive, lost control, overturned. Imbree severely injured.
    • Issue: What standard of care was owed by McNeilly as driver of car to his passenger?
    • Was duty of care to be determined by reference to an unqualified and inexperienced driver?
    • Decision: Standard of care properly determined by reference to standard licenced driver.
    • Reason: Well recognised - motorist on highway subject to duty of care to avoid injury to person or property of another.
    • Learner driver owes all other road users duty of care, requires learner to meet same standard of care as any other driver on road.

    • Issue: Had Imbree's own negligence contributed to harm suffered?
    • Decision: Yes, to a significant extent.
    • Reason: In taking reasonable care of his own safety, should have warned McNeilly, instructed him. Failure to do so - negligence, responsible for 30% of consequent harm.
  9. Hole v Hocking
    • tort, negligence, liability for physical harm cased, acceleration of harm
    • Facts: injuries from car accident - brain hemorrhage  damage. Medical evidence - hemorrhage was going to occur at some point anyway.
    • Issue: Was driver liable to pay compensation for hemorrhage suffered by plaintiff?
    • Decision: Plaintiff not entitled to damages for him he would have suffered regardless of driver's negligence.
    • Reason: "Would the harm have occurred but for the defendant's conduct?"
    • Driver cannot be held responsible for something that would have occurred even if he had not been negligent.
    • Plaintiff entitled to damages for period of which hemorrhage accelerated, and for the extent to which hemorrhage was more severe that might otherwise have been.

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview