{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Chief justice king said the ultimate question however

Info iconThis preview shows pages 20–23. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chief Justice King said: “The ultimate question, however, is not whether the defendant’s conduct accords with the practices of his profession or some part of it, but whether it conforms to the standard of reasonable care demanded by the law. That is a question for the court and the duty of deciding it cannot be delegated to any profession or group in the community.” This was affirmed in Rogers v Whitaker where the court confirmed that it would be the body that decided whether the doctor had breached the standard of care relating to the disclosure of risk, on all the evidence before it. s 60 re information cases – duty to warn of risk cases- o Victoria has not adopted Ipp recommendations
Background image of page 20

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
o instead s 60 says peer professional opinion is NOT the standard where issue is negligence IS THE warning or failure warn of risk or other matter in a professional service case o Therefore does not apply to doctors and still use: o instead still use common law from F v R and Rogers v Whitaker to determine if been breach Vic also did not adopt Ipp Report recommendation that there be no obligation to warn of obvious risks -> so def probably still needs to warn plaintiff of obvious risks Further Considerations: There are some other factors the court will look at that do not come from s. 48(2) Wrongs Act: - Breach of other legislation: Will a breach of legislation indicate in itself that there has been a breach of duty? Will someone breaking a law automatically breach their duty? No- contravention of a legislative requirement is not a definitive breach of duty, but the court will take it into account (Tucker v McCann- Speeding car went through intersection and hit bike, was breaching speed legislation; held that failure to adhere to legislative requirements was not decisive. You may have to swerve and cross the double lines to avoid a child- this dos not automatically breach your duty of care to other road users- what would a reasonable person have done ?). The assessment of Res Ipsa Loquitur- the thing speaks for itself In some situations, the plaintiff will not be able to point to a specific act by virtue of which the defendant has breached their duty to the plaintiff, and there is no way to find out. However, the very fact of the incident strongly suggests that the defendant was negligent. IF a plaintiff adduces specific evidence of an act of negligence on the part of the defendant and such specific evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the tribunal of fact of the defendant’s negligence the plaintiff may still rely on RIL and inferences to be drawn from the general nature of the accident.
Background image of page 21
In Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings P/L the High Court held that RIL is not a rule of law but a process of valid interential reasoning used in tort law. It was held that it only applies is cases where it is proven that an accident would not ordinarily occur without the negligence of the defendant. For the court to accept res ipsa loquitur, there are some preconditions that
Background image of page 22

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 23
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page20 / 66

Chief Justice King said The ultimate question however is...

This preview shows document pages 20 - 23. Sign up to view the full document.

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