Tort test review

Q1
Duty

of care
Sue taxi driver and bus driver
Taxi driver direct
Bus driver indirect
o Relationship between the driver and passenger
established duty
o Crashed and hurt minutes later

Breach of duty
Driver prevented leaving
Volenti
Ex turpi crime to walk on a highway
Q2
Duty of care
Injury indirectly inflicted by the school full duty of care
criteria applies
o Because it is the students own free will to commit
suicide; not like slippery floor)
Fiduciary relationship maybe; well-recognized relationship of
duty of care
Another argument: primary victim of punitive measures
humiliation by the teacher, therefore suffer from psychological
distress and harm
o Also a remoteness issue?
o T case?
Foreseeability
o Reasonably foreseeable (Reeves?)
o But may not be, because it is indirectly inflicted
Proximity
o Particularized relationship he is the teachers student
Fairness and justice or policy
o Suicide should not attract a duty in general
o Extra resources for taking care of pupils own act, free
will
o Known psychiatric illness history, and taken into the
school should be taken care of
Reeves: in general it is rare to have a duty owed to somebody
who committed suicide unless in special circumstances
Breach of duty

Standard of care: standard of a reasonable school standard

higher than the reasonable standard because a school is
specialized in education
o Standard of school: can be found in codes/ usual
practices, taking in the major peculiar circumstances
o The teacher did not even know the guidelines, may still
did a good job although did not see the guideline but
this suggests a breach
o School still breach the duty because did not give the
guideline to the teachers
o Alleged breach: the failure to address this boys needs

Causation
Can we really say the schools conduct causes the suicide?
But for test:
o 17-day lapse suggests there could be other causes
o may not pass the test
o may be just a trigger, would happen anyway
Remoteness

Defences
Volenti voluntary assumption of risk
o Full knowledge of consequences
o What policy argument would be relevant?
If we have proved a duty, and now under the
defences and take away the duty by applying
volenti
Contributory negligence
o Failure to take care own safety
o Causation
o Apportionment reeves; who is to blame more, relative
blameworthiness
Boy: young and vulnerable; school: professional
o LARCO: Fault can include deliberate conduct
o Reeves: policy result because better avoid the all-ornothing approach
Ex turpi causa
o Suicide illegal?
o Arguable
o Close connection
o Public conscience
o Pitt v hunt