Vulnerability - the defendant must have been unable to protect himself and was forced to rely on the defendant to ensure that care had been taken. This text provides a summary on the rules courts use to solve questions.
CLA, s 18 1: Professor Shapo selects colorful examples from an enormous variety of cases he has studied and relates the principles of law to understandable real-life situations. In an exceptional case: Haber v Walker A completely voluntary human action.
Where there is an intervening act, causation will be cut off: In cases of pure mental harm ie, no physical injury to the defendant there is a further requirement: Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd. Liability is indeterminate only when it cannot be realistically calculated Burden Torts study guide commercial activity.
If a measure is too much of a burden on the defendant, Torts study guide will not be required by the standard of care. Damages are given on a compensatory basis - restoring the party to his original position. Breach - standard of care is breached if the plaintiff ought to have reasonably foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable prudent man, he might be hurt himself: The test for establishing this duty differs according to the scenario: CLA, S 32 2: Reasonable reliance - this is broken down into two parts: Namely, the standard of care is lowered by economic and practical constraints.
Whilst contributory negligence used to be a complete defence to negligence, it now only reduces the damages recoverable by the plaintiff: A plaintiff who was constrained by circumstances from making a free choice will not be regarded as acting voluntarily. Interest is not awarded for: In the case of certain damages, a more stringent duty of care will need to be established.
Economic loss special damages.
To qualify as such an activity, an activity must: The subsequent injuries do not have to be reasonably foreseeable. Reeves v Commissioner of Police.
There is no duty to warn for an obvious risk see exceptions: Involve a significant risk, which is: The successive tortfeasor will only be liable for the new damage which his act caused.
Regardless of any accepted practice, there is a duty to warn of a material risk: Whether the risk was an inherent risk - there will be no liability no breach for the materialisation of an inherent risk: The plaintiff is presumed to be aware of an obvious risk, and therefore more careful.
New South Wales v Lepore. In order for a defendant to owe a non-delegable duty, the following requirements must be satisfied: Later adjusted to account for vicissitudes see below. As a result, a defendant who owes a non-delegable duty will be liable for the wrongdoing of others even if they are independent contractors.
In determining causation, the court acts as follows: Calculated according to the ability of the plaintiff to make money, not present day wages: Grant v Sun Shipping Co Ltd. Where there are successive causes causing similar damage:This guide features study guides for first year classes that are availble in the library.
If you have questions about using or finding the guides, please contact the library by email at [email protected] or make an appointment with a librarian. Mastering Tort Law is a succinct, practical guide to the intricacies of tort law.
Functional in approach, it describes and illustrates basic tort doctrine, and provides students with insight into more advanced tort. Strict liability applies when a defendant places another person in danger, even in the absence of negligence, simply because he is in possession of a dangerous product, animal or weapon.
The structure for solving a torts problem is as follows: Establish that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Establish that the duty was breached.
Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.5/5(1). law flashcards Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free.Download