{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PART_A_DUTY_OF_CARE

Others doctorpatient carrierpassenger hotelierpatron

Info iconThis preview shows pages 64–66. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Others: doctor/patient; carrier/passenger; hotelier/patron; bailee/bailor of goods Special Relationship Between Defendant and 3 rd Party who causes damage or loss to Plaintiff Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256 (CB 509) Facts: Semi hostile play fight between boys, seriously damaging the Plaintiff’s sight. Held: * It comes down to weighing the risks to others which the boys possession of a shangahi involves against the difficulties and disadvantages of an attempt on the part of parents to eliminate those as well as other foreseeable risks to strangers from the conduct of their sons Dixon says: It is incumbent upon a parent who maintains control over a young child to take reasonable care so to exercise that control as to avoid conduct on his part exposing the person or property of others to unreasonable danger. Parental control where is exists must be exercised with due care to prevent the
Background image of page 64

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
child from inflicting intentional damage. The parents in telling their son only to use the shanghai in their home sufficed. Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549 Facts: A teacher in a nursery school was about to take to children under 5 out for a walk. Went to get ready left them in the classroom then found that one of them had cut themselves. Left the room again to attend to child then found the other 2 had disappeared. One of them had walked out, cross the road. A truck driver swerved to miss the kid, but hit a lamp and died. Child unharmed. Held: At trial Teacher found to have been neglignent in allowing child to escape and so as to cause the death. Council held vicariously liable. House of Lords however held that teacher had not been negligent in leaving the child unattended in the circumstances that arose. However, dismissed appeal on another ground that the council personally liable for failing to fit a catch on the gate. The duty that exists is to prevent the person under ones control from harm to another not necessarily to prevent such a person committing a tort. Kerr v Allen [1995] Aust Torts Reports 62,150 esp 62,151 - 62,161 Young children cause fire while unattended. The defendant, who had two children aged 3 and 5, agreed to mind another child aged 3 who lived in the plaintiff's house nearby. The children were left unattended at the defendant's premises. They went to the plaintiff's premises and started a fire while playing with matches. The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the supervision undertaken by the defendant carried with it a duty to act to prevent injury to the plaintiff caused by the children. The duty assumed by the defendant extended at least to a duty of care to the child and his parent and included a duty in relation to the parent's property and properties which were physically nearby. The duty would reasonably extend to all houses which were accessible to the children, including the plaintiff's premises. There was causal proximity in that there was a close causal connection between the
Background image of page 65
Image of page 66
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page64 / 66

Others doctorpatient carrierpassenger hotelierpatron...

This preview shows document pages 64 - 66. Sign up to view the full document.

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