LAW1100 Lecture 4 notes 01.docx
- 文档编号:7680285
- 上传时间:2023-01-25
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:11
- 大小:23.80KB
LAW1100 Lecture 4 notes 01.docx
《LAW1100 Lecture 4 notes 01.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《LAW1100 Lecture 4 notes 01.docx(11页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
LAW1100Lecture4notes01
EdithCowanUniversity
2011
LEGALFRAMEWORKI
LECTURENOTES
Notetoreader:
theselecturenotesarecompiledforthepurposesoftheunitLAW1100LegalFrameworkIandareselectiveinnatureandscope.Thenotesareforacademicpurposesonly.
Lecture4
LawofNegligence:
3rdessentialofNegligence,remediesanddefences
INTRODUCTION
ThislecturecontinuesthediscussiononnegligencefromLecture3.Inthislecture,wewillconsiderthethirdessentialinNegligence,SufficientConnectioninLaw,alongwithremediesavailabletoasuccessfulplaintiff,andtherangeofdefencespotentiallyavailabletothedefendant.
Onsuccessfulcompletionofthislecture,youshould(withinthescopeofthecourse)beableto:
∙describethekeyelementstosufficientconnectioninlaw:
causationandremoteness
∙describethe‘eggshellskullrule’andexplainhowitqualifiesremoteness
∙identifyanddescribetheremedyofdamagesinnegligence
∙differentiatebetweenpecuniaryandnon-pecuniaryloss
∙giveexamplesofpecuniaryandnon-pecuniaryloss
∙describethe‘onceandforallrule’
∙identifyanddescribethedefencespotentiallyavailabletoadefendant
SUFFICIENTCONNECTIONINLAW
Afterestablishingthatadutyofcarewasowedbythedefendanttotheplaintiff(i.e.firstessential)andtherequiredstandardofcarewasbreached(i.e.secondessential),theplaintiffmustthenshowthattherewasasufficientconnectioninlawbetweentheinjuryandtheconduct.Tosatisfythethirdessential,theplaintiffmustshowthatthebreachactuallycausedtheinjurysuffered,whichwasofatypethatwasareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceofthatbreach.
Thethirdessentialthereforehastwocomponents:
∙Causation-didthedefendant’sactoromissioncausetheplaintiff’sinjuryorloss?
and
∙Remoteness-ifthedefendant’sconductdidcausedamagetotheplaintiff,isthedefendantliableforthedamagesufferedbytheplaintiffresultingfromhisnegligentconduct?
Note:
theterm‘damage’referstotheinjuryorlosssufferedbytheplaintiff,whilsttheterm‘damages’referstothesumofmoneyawardedbythecourtincompensationforthedamagesuffered.
Theplaintiffmustsufferactualdamagerecognisedinlaw;a‘nearmiss’isnotcompensated.Theinjuryorlosssufferedbytheplaintiffmayfallunderoneormoreofthefollowingclassifications:
∙personalphysicalinjury–forexample,thegastroenteritissufferedbyMrsDonoghueinDonoghuev.Stevenson,orthelossofthemechanic’sgoodeyeinParisv.StepneyBoroughCouncil
∙propertydamage-involvingactualphysicaldamagetoproperty
∙monetaryorfinancialloss–involvingthelossofmoneyorfinancialresources
∙lossofwages-e.g.thelostwagessufferedbyMrsDonoghueinDonoghuev.Stevensonasaresultofherillness
∙nervousshockorpsychoneurosis,orotherformsofmentalinjurytotheperson
CAUSATION
Thekeyquestioninrelationtocausationisthis:
onthebalanceofprobabilities,didthedefendant'sconductcausetheplaintiff'sinjuryorloss?
Causationisoftenacomplexquestion,andforassessmentpurposes,onlyrelativelysimplequestionsareposed.
‘Butfortest’
The‘butfor’test,formulatedbyLordDenninginCorkvKirbyMaclean[1952]2ALLER402,isusefulfordeterminingcausation,althoughithasanumberoflimitationswhicharediscussedbelow.AccordingtoLordDenning(at407):
Ifyoucansaythatthedamagewouldnothavehappenedbutforaparticularfault,thenthatfaultisinfactacauseofthedamage;butifyoucansaythatthedamagewouldhavehappenedjustthesame,faultornofault,thenthefaultisnotthecauseofthedamage.Itoftenhappensthateachofthepartiesatfaultcantrulysaytotheother:
‘Butforyourfault,itwouldnothavehappened.’Insuchacase,bothfaultsareinfactcausesofthedamage.
Ifotherwords,(i)ifthedamagewouldnothavehappenedwithout(i.e.butfor)aparticularfault(i.e.theactoromissionbythedefendant),thenthatfaultisacause(inotherwords,thenegligentconductisanecessarycausebutdoesnothavetobethesoleorevenmajorcause);alternatively,(ii)ifthedamagewouldhavehappenedjustthesame,withorwithoutthefault,thenthefaultisnotthecause(i.e.thedamagewouldhaveoccurredanyway,regardlessofthefault).
CaseSummaryreading–UnderstandingBusinessLaw(2008)text,page720
CorkvKirkbyMacleanLtd[1952]2AllER402
CaseSummaryreading–UnderstandingBusinessLaw(2008)text,page721
BarnettvChelsea&KensingtonHospitalManagementCommittee[1969]1QB428
Limitationsof"BUTFOR"test
The‘butfor’testhasanumberoflimitations.Thetestmaysupportirrelevant‘butfor’circumstances.Forexample,sayAandBlightafireindependentlyofeachotherindifferentplaceswhichmeetupandburndownafarmhouse.Underthe‘butfor’test,neitherAnorBmaybeliableashousewouldhavestillburnedbytheotherfire.Thatis,inrespectofA(andB),youcouldsaythehousewouldstillhaveburneddownevenifhehadn'tlitafire.However,inpractice,bothwouldbeheldequallyliable.
Thetestisalsosensitivetotherightquestionbeingasked.Forexample,saythepolicearechasingathiefthroughaforestandadecayedtreefallsonthepolicecar-isthethiefresponsibleforthedamage?
Youcouldsaythedamagewouldnothaveoccurredbutfortheactionofthethiefresultinginthepolicecarbeinginthatparticularspotandthatthereforeheisliable.However,itisequallypossiblethatthepolicecarcouldhavebeeninthatareaonroutinepatrolwiththesameresult.
Generally,thelongerormorecomplexthe‘causalchain’betweenthedefendant’sconductandtheplaintiff’slossinvolvingmultiplecontributingfactors,thegreaterwillbethelimitationsintheapplicationofthe‘butfor’test.
The‘commonsense’test
Fromtheearly1990s,theHighCourthasexpresseddissatisfactionwiththe‘butfor’testanditslimitations.AccordingtoPentony,Graw,LennardandParker(2003,p.386),apreferredapproach“istoaskwhether,onthebalanceofprobabilities,thedefendant’sactsoromissionscausedormateriallycontributedtotheplaintiff’sloss,damageorinjury.”Inotherwords,inallcommonsenseandasaquestionoffact,didthedefendant’sconductcausetheplaintiff’sloss?
CaseSummaryreading–UnderstandingBusinessLaw(2008)text,page720
BonningtonCastingsLtdvWardlaw[1956]AC613
CaseSummaryreading–UnderstandingBusinessLaw(2008)text,page721
MarchvStramare(E&MH)PtyLtd(1991)171CLR506
Forthepurposesofassessmentinrelationtocausationinnegligence,considerinturncausationintermsofthe‘butfor’testandthe‘commonsense’test,andconcludeonboth.
Novusactusinterveniens
Certainactionsmayservetobreakthe‘causalchain’andrenderthedefendantnotliableforparticularlossessufferedbytheplaintiff.Consideranemployeeinjuredatworkthroughthenegligenceoftheiremployer.Theyarethenrushedtohospitalinanambulance.Ontheway,theambulanceisinvolvedinatrafficaccident,occasioningfurtherinjurytotheemployee.Istheemployerresponsiblefortheinjuriessufferedbytheemployeeinthetrafficaccidentaswellasthosesufferedatwork?
Undernovusactusinterveniens,a‘newinterveningact’mayberesponsible–perhapsthecarelessnessofaroaduserleadingtotheaccident.
CaseSummaryreading–UnderstandingBusinessLaw(2008)text,page723
KnightlyvJohns[1982]1AllER851
REMOTENESS
Theissueofremotenessseeksthequantumoramountofdamagesforwhichthedefendantisliable.Thedefendantisnotliablenecessarilyforallthedamagetheyhavecausedasthelawmustdrawthelinesomewhere.FromthecaseWagonMoundNo1,thedefendantisliableonlyforthetypesorkindsofdamagethatwerereasonablyforeseeable.Thatis,damagesufferedthatwasnottooremote.
ThefindingfromWagonMoundNo1raisedthequestionastothemeaningof‘reasonablyforeseeable’.Inalatercasefromthesameincident,WagonMoundNo2,theCourtfoundthatoncetheriskcanbeacceptedas‘real’and‘notfar-fetched’,thedamagethatflowsistoberegardedasreasonablyforeseeable.
CaseSummaryreading–UnderstandingBusinessLaw(2008)text,page722
OverseasTankship(UK)LtdvMillerSteamshipCoPtyLtd(TheWagonMoundNo2)[1967]AC617
Forexample,considerasituationwherethedefendantcarelesslyplacesawoodenplankwhichfallsintotheplaintiff’sship’shold.Unbeknowntoallparties,theholdisfulloffuelvapour.Thefallingplankstrikesasparkandignitesthevapour,withseriousdamageresulting.WiththetestofreasonableforeseeabilityfromWagonMoundNo1,thedefendantisonlyliableforthosetypesorkindsofinjurythatarereasonablyforeseeable.Clearly,personalinjuryorphysicaldamagetopropertyfromimpactaretypesorkindsofinjurythatarereasonablyforeseeableasaresultofbeinghitbythefallingplank,whilstanexplosionisarguablytoofarfetchedtobereasonablyforeseeable.However,ifthedefendanthadknownthattheholdwasfullofvapour,thentheexplosionmaythenbeseenasreasonablyforeseeableasaconsequenceofthefallingplank.
EggShellSkullRule
TheEggShellSkullRulequalifiestheissueofremoteness/reasonableforeseeabilityinrelationtopersonalinjury.Oncethetypeofdamagethatisreasonablyforeseeableispersonalinjury,thenthedefendantisliableforallofthatkindofinjuryactuallysuffered.Thatis,"youmusttakeyourvictimasyoufindhim"(EggShellSkullRule).Hence,oncesomepersonalphysicalinjuryisreasonablyforeseeable(forexample,personalinjurycharacterised
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- LAW1100 Lecture notes 01