{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Held liable reasonably foreseeable a reasonable

Info iconThis preview shows pages 35–38. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
HELD: Liable – reasonably foreseeable. A reasonable person who has the knowledge of the defendant would have known there was a real risk that the oil would catch fire. Reasonably foreseeable = not unlikely, far fetched or fanciful . Reasonably foreseeable = a real risk which would occur to a reasonable man in the D’s position and would not brush aside. Hughes v Lord Advocate (HOL) FACTS: D was working on power lines under ground. They left a man hole open but covered it with a tent and surrounded it with lamps. A little boy picked up the lamp and went inside the tent. He bumped the lamp into the man hole and it released vapours which exploded and burnt the child. Mt Isa Mines v Pusey FACTS: Two employees were electrocuted at work. P ran in an successfully rescued one man but the other died. P was traumatized and became schizophrenic. HELD: Liable. Kind of injury = mental harm = reasonably foreseeable. Did not have to foresee schizophrenia.
Background image of page 35

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
36 Tremain v Pike FACTS: P worked for D on a farm that had a rat problem. P got Wheels disease – a very rare disease from contact with rat urine. HELD: Not liable Kind of injury = disease contracted by contact with rat urine. Precise way harm was contracted is relevant . VERY NARROW VIEW. Dowty v Turner FACTS: A factory worked with molten metal. A cauldron full of it hung over a bath with a cover on it. Due to D’s negligence, the cover wasn’t on properly. The cover got knocked into the cauldron. It fell in softly but caused a chemical reaction which caused a splash. HELD: D not liable. Kind of injury = burns caused by splash. Nader v Urban Transit Authority of NSW FACTS: 10 yr old boy got off a bus while it was still moving and slammed into a pole. There were minor physical injuries and he got a rare psychological disorder due in part to the physical injury, but also the over protectiveness of the parents and their failure to get proper medical treatment. HELD: Not liable. Kind of injury = mental harm. Mental harm and parents’ reaction = reasonably foreseeable.
Background image of page 36
Extent of Harm Need Not be Reasonably Foreseeable - Thin Skull Rule CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - Contributory Negligence = failure to take reasonable care of your own safety. - Duty is irrelevant – main thing is breach. Section 25(a): Wrong = an act or omission that gives rise to a liability in trot in respect of which a defence of contributory negligence is available at CL. Section 26(1): If someone suffers damage that has been contributed to by the wrong of another party – (a) except as in section 63 , a claim cannot be defeated by a defence of contributory negligence; (b) the damages will be apportioned to reflect the contribution of the parties involved. Section 63: A court may grant 100% reduction if it is equitable to do so.
Background image of page 37

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 38
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page35 / 45

HELD Liable reasonably foreseeable A reasonable person who...

This preview shows document pages 35 - 38. Sign up to view the full document.

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