The occurrence must be the sort of thing that would

Info icon This preview shows pages 22–25. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
- The occurrence must be the sort of thing that would not normally happen without negligence: The court will not hold that every unexplained accident is a result of negligence. It must be that this accident would not normally occur without actual negligence (Shellenburg v Tunnel Holdings- plaintiff operated grinding device, air hose came loose and hit P in face, P sued employer, argued that the fact that the hole came loose was in itself a strong indication that there had been negligence- it spoke for itself; held there were a number of plausible reasons why it may have come loose, which have noting to do with the employer- i.e. a fault in the hose. Therefore, it could not be said that it was the sort of thing that wouldn’t normally happen without negligenc e). Kirby: RIL should be regarded merely as an application of the general method of inferring one or more facts in issue from circumstances proved in evidence. Note: a subset of this precondition is whether someone with expert knowledge must make whether the thing would normally happen with/without negligence. If it cannot be ascertained without expert knowledge, the thing does not speak for itself- and the defendant cannot rely on Res Ipsa Loquitur. - The situation in which the act happened must have been in the defendant’s exclusive control: The defendant will not be held responsible if other people have been in contact with the situation (i.e. lettuce used for a burger). However, the defendant need not be in control of the situation personally- it is enough if the defendant controls the people who have exclusive control (such as employees of a drink company). In such a case, it is a matter for the court to determine, but generally the employer will be liable for the acts of the employees- unless the plaintiff is the employee. It
Image of page 22

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
is uncertain whether an employer can be said to have exclusive control of equipment to which the employee has access (Shellenburg v Tunnel Holdings- it was not actually decided; Kirby: said an employer does have exclusive control; Gleeson and McHugh: expressed doubts about it, without actually decidin g). It is potentially problematic for an plaintiff employee can argue that a defendant employer has exclusive control to machinery which the plaintiff himself had access to.
Image of page 23
C A U S A T I O N 1. There is a duty 2. That duty is breached 3. D’s act or omission cause of harm. S 51(1) WA says that the breach must be a cause of the harm both in fact and law. (a) Factual liability; necessary condition of the harm (b) that it is appropriate for the scope of the negligent person's liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability). (1) A determination that negligence caused particular harm comprises the following elements-    (a)  that the negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the  harm (factual causation); and    (b)  that it is appropriate for the scope of the negligent person's         liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability).
Image of page 24

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 25
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern