{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Negligence_Elements

The court of appeals held that the level of

Info iconThis preview shows pages 4–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The Court of Appeals held that the level of stringency was “likely to injure” as per Lord Aiken. The HC overturned the ruling and as per Barwick CJ preferred the lower level of stringency of “not unlikely” this is “because …it excludes possibilities which are theoretical or unreal in all the circumstances”. The consequences of the easy fulfilment of the test meant that additional requirements became attached to it. Although the tests threshold is low not every case will satisfy the RF requirement. Sulivan v Moody 5 - The tests is watered down further to “real and not far fetched possibility”. In this case the court discusses reasons for the RF test as opposed to simply allowing every callous act to give rise to a duty the reason is two fold: 1. If every careless act would give rise to a DoC then “the law would subject citizens to an intolerable burden of potential liability”. 4 P boarded an express train in order to assist a passenger in removing baggage. The train started moving without warning before the passenger had time to disembark, the passengers 14 year old son was on the platform some 64kms away from home. The P jumped from the train and was injured in doing so. A jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. 5 Father suspected of sexually abusing his children. Doctors, psychologists etc produced a report which indicated that the children may have been abused. Father sued the practitioners in negligence saying that they had caused him psychiatric disorder. 4
Background image of page 4

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
2. “The tort of negligence would subvert many other principles of law, and statutory provisions, which strike a balance between obligations, duties and freedoms. Chapman v Hearse 6 - Events need not be precisely foreseeable rather events of the same general character need to be RF. HC Held that events need not be specifically foreseeable; the precise chain need not be predictable or likely. The event needs to be of the same general character which the reasonable man can reasonably foreseeable. “It is …sufficient …to ask whether a consequence of the same general character as that which followed was RF, as one not unlikely to follow a collision” . Pailsgraf v Long Island Railway Co. 7 (NY Decision) Limits on chain of events. Here the court held that the chain of events leading up to the scales falling on the P was not reasonably foreseeable by D, the case failed on the RF requirement. Here the court has held that the remoteness of the damage from the act was to great, meaning that according to the test laid down in Chapman v Hearse the events where not even in general character which should have been RF. There fore no DoC can exist. Bourhill v Young 1943 (English Decision) 8 - Unforeseeable plaintiff. Lord Macmillan: “there was [not] any reasonable likelihood of her being affected by the cyclists careless
Background image of page 5
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page4 / 48

The Court of Appeals held that the level of stringency was...

This preview shows document pages 4 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

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