LEGT 1710_Wk 7_Lecture_Slides

LEGT 1710_Wk 7_Lecture_Slides - Week 6 updated slides...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 BUSINESS AND THE LAW WEEK 7 Tort Law (Continued) LEGT 1710: Session 2, 2010 Lecturer: Leela Cejnar 2 Week 6 – updated slides PLEASE NOTE! • Week 6 slides have been updated • Please download again from Blackboard 3 ASSIGNMENT 2 Assignment 2: • Is now on Blackboard • Due Week 9: Monday 20 September 2010, by 5pm • Check course outline for details about how/where to hand in 4 NEXT WEEK: MID-SESSION BREAK • No lectures: Monday 6 September to Friday 10 September • Classes resume Monday 13 September 5 Summary of week 6 lecture • Tort is “a wrong” • Different types of tort • Focus on negligence • Establishing if there is a duty of care ? – Donoghue v Stevenson 6 1 Duty of care Common law: Reasonable foreseeability/“neighbour” test Case law: Donoghue v Stevenson CL Act : S5B(1) Was the risk forseeable? Was the risk not insignificant In the circumstances, would a reasonable person in the person’s position have taken precautions?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
7 Summary of week 6 lecture (cont’d) • What is the standard of care? • What the ordinary, reasonable and prudent person would do 8 2 Standard of Care Common law: S tandard of reasonable person in the circumstances. Case law: Paris v Stepney Borough Council /Bolton v Stone/Mercer v Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways (NSW)/ Rogers v Whittaker CL Act: S5B(2) factors for precautions by a reasonable person: Probability that harm would occur if care were not taken Likely seriousness of harm Burden of taking precautions to avoid risk of harm Social utility of activity that creates the risk of harm 9 Summary of week 6 lecture (cont’d) • Has there been a breach of the duty? 10 3 Breach of care Ask: Would a reasonable person have taken precautions against a risk of harm? Case Law: Paris v Stepney Borough Council /Bolton v Stone/Mercer v Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways (NSW)/ Rogers v Whittaker/Romeo v Conservation Commission (NT) CL Act: s 5B(1): the 3 step test of negligence 11 Summary of week 6 lecture (cont’d) Remoteness: – Connection between breach of duty and damage cannot be too remote – Referred to as Scope of Liability in CL Act: s 5D 12 4 Remoteness Common law: Was it forseeable that the injury would occur? Can responsibility for the harm be imposed on the negligent party or is the connection between the breach of the duty of care and the injury suffered too remote? Case law: The Wagon Mound cases CL Act : Scope of Liability s5D(1)(b): Is it appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm that was caused?
Background image of page 2
13 Summary of week 6 lecture (cont’d) Causation –“But for” test: Cork v Kirby McLean –CL Act s 5D 14 5 Causation Common law: But for”/Without the defendant’s breach of duty would the plaintiff have suffered the harm? Case law:
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

LEGT 1710_Wk 7_Lecture_Slides - Week 6 updated slides...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online