100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 32 - 34 out of 49 pages.
Determiningwhat a reasonableperson would or would not have done base on what another person of similar skill and knowledgeor in similar positionwould have done (Phillips v William Whitley Ltd (1939)). In addition, the court will weigh and balance many factors such as the likelihood of danger and the severity of the danger if it results, as well as the cost of averting the danger. (Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte Ltd (2006))However, if the likelihood of injuryor seriousness of injury is great, there might be a breach of the 32
BIZLAW CHEAT SHEETduty of care if no appropriate actionis taken as provided in Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951).*Such factors have to be balanced with the cost of taking preventive measures. Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) (Is there a high risk of a liability occurring and is there a low cost in taking preventive measures in preventing that risk?)In this case... apply the law to the case here... a reasonable person with the same training and skillswould not have done XXX. Furthermore, the benefit is much higher than the low costs of taking XX possible protective measures. The defendant ought to have taken the following measures, and sincethey did not, they are likely to have breached their duty of care.However, whether or not there was indeed a breach of duty of care is a matter of fact for the court to decide.Causation of loss (page 312)The next element that needs to be established is that the defendant’s breach has caused the plaintiff’s loss through the application of the “but for” test. If the “but for” test fails, there may not be liability. Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969).(But for the defendant’s negligence, would the plaintiff have been injured?) However, the chain of causation may be broken in the presence of a “novus actus interveniens” such as where the damages caused by the defendant is exacerbated by some unreasonable act on the part of the plaintiff, as in Mckew v Holland and Hannens and Cubitts (1969)But,if the behaviour of the plaintiff was not unreasonablein the circumstances, the chain of causation may not be broken, as held in TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi (2004). In this case..g. apply the law to the case here...however, whether or not there was indeed causationis a matter of fact for the court to decide.Loss not remote(page 313)Lastly, it must be established that the damages claimed by the plaintiff are not too remote, that is, whether they are reasonably foreseeable. The test for remoteness was laid down in Hadley v Baxendale (1854). Damages would not be too remote if they arose naturally, or in the usual course of things, such damages would not be incurred. Exceptional loss can only be claimed provided it waswithin the contemplation of both parties at the time of the contract.