Tort of negligence
Issues
Duty of care is
owned
No need to prevent form
harm
Good Samaritans/Volunteer
Disclaim
D has control or not
P’s vulnerability
Special relationship
Breach standard
duty of care
Section 31 Standard care
(Reasonable person in D’s
position)
Section 32
1 Foreseeablity
2 Risk not insignificant
3 Probability of
risk/seriousness of risk/cost
of taking precautions
Section 40 Skilled person
A person professing to have
a particular skill
P D
Yes. Physical loss No. Physical loss
Donoghue v Stevenson Modbury Triangle shopping centre v
Anzil
Mental harm
Mental loss
Jaensch v Coffey (Reasonable person
test CLA 33) Tame v New South Wales
Economic loss Economic loss
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon Esanda Finance v Peat Marwick
Not effective Yes and effective
Yes. Australian Safety Stores v Zaluzna No Modbury v Anzil
Cant stray away/ Lack of special
knowledge
Exists Hedley v Heller Does not exist.
Yes No
O’Dwyer v Leo Buring Romeo v Conservation Commission of
NT
Could have done better Have done a what a reasonable person
could be expected
O’Dwyer v Leo Buring Romeo v
1 Not reasonably expected of that 2 Reasonably expected of that person
person
Esanda Finance v
2 Relevant circumstances
Causation of loss Yes No
Section 34 Definition of Yes. Chapel v Hart No
causation
1 Necessary condition of
the occurrence of the harm
2 D be responsible for P’s
loss
Section 50 Contributory No According to Section 44 standard of Yes . P is also negligent.March v
negligence P’s negligence. P is not negligent Stramare Pty Ltd
Section 42 Maintenance of Not involved in Involved in
road
Section 43 Criminal activity