LAW1113 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Contributory Negligence, Reasonable Person, Breach (Security Exploit)
LAW1113&TORTS&-&CASE&SUMMARIES&AND&KEY&POINTS&
NEGLIGENCE&–&BREACH&OF&DUTY&
&
WHAT&IS&NEGLIGENT&CONDUCT?&
• The$nature$of$the$inquiry$at$the$breach$stage$is$to$determine$whether,$by$what$the$D$has$specifically$
done$or$not$done,$the$D$has$behaved$sufficiently$carelessly$such$as$to$constitute$negligence$at$law.$
• Broadly$this$involves$a$two-fold$task:$
o Establishing$the$standard$of$care$against$which$the$D$will$be$assessed;$
o Determining$whether,$by$what$the$D$has$done$or$not$done,$the$D$meets$or$falls$short$of$the$
expected$standard$of$care.$
&
Standard&of&care&
&
Which%characteristics%of%the%D%will%be%attributed%to%the%reasonable%person?%(Physical%Disabilities)%
• There$is$very$little$authority$as$to$whether$this$is$taken$into$account$in$setting$the$standard$cf#
contributory#negligence$
• $It$is$likely$that$even$if$it$were,$the$operative$issue$would$be$whether$the$person$was$negligent$for$having$
allowed$themself$to$be$in$the$risk$creating$situation$in$the$first$place$in$light$of$their$disability.$
Section&
Details&
S&48(1)(c),&Wrongs%Act&
&
The$standard$of$care$expected$of$the$D$is$that$of$“a$
reasonable$person$in$the$person’s$position”&
Reasonable&person&standard&
$
Ø The$reasonable$person$is$an$objective$standard$
Ø The$reasonable$person$is$a$prudent$person:$
Vaughan#v#Menlove$
Ø But$some#characteristics$of$the$specific$D$may$
modify$the$standard$applied,$although$most$do$
not$
&
Case&
Details&
McHale%v%Watson$(Minority)&
Ø Use:$Standard$of$care$for$children$
Ø Standard:&
o A$child$will$be$held$to$the$standard$of$care$of$
an$ordinary$child$of$comparable$age$
o Childhood$is$not$an$idiosyncrasy$but$a$
normal$stage$of$development$
o Open$as$to$whether$the$particular$child’s$
intelligence$and$experience$further$modifies$
the$standard,$but$the$better$view$is$that$it$
does$not&
Facts&(Refer&to&Trespass)&
Carrier%v%Bonham%
Ø Use:$Standard$for$Mental$Incapacity%
Ø Standard:&D$with$a$mental$impairment$which$may$reduce$their$cognitive$and$foresight$capacities$will$still$
be$held$to$the$standard$of$a$reasonable$mentally$competent$person%
Imbree%v%McNeilly&(2008)%
Ø Use:$Standard$for$Inexperience%
Ø Standard:%
o No$account$will$be$taken$for$a$particular$D’s$inexperience$with$respect$to$the$activity$at$hand$
o To$the$extent$that$the$case$of$Cook$v$Cook$created$an$exception$to$that$principle,$it$is$overturned$
Philips%v%Williams%Whiteley%Ltd%
Ø Use:$Standard$for$Special$Skills$(Refer$to$s$58(a),#Wrongs#Act)$
Standard:&A$person$with$special$skills$will$be$held$to$the$standard$of$care$of$a$reasonable$person$possessing$
LAW1113&TORTS&-&CASE&SUMMARIES&AND&KEY&POINTS&
those$special$skill&
Roe%v%Minister%for%Health%
Ø Use:$Standard$for$Time$of$Assessment$(Refer$to$s$58(b),#Wrongs#Act$(Special$skill))$
Standard:%Standard$of$the$reasonable$person$is$assessed$according$to$knowledge$at$the$date$of$the$alleged$
negligence$and$not$at$the$date$of$judgment&
&
REASONABLE&FORESEEABILITY&&
Section&
Details&
s&48(1)(a)&
A$person$is$not$negligent$in$failing$to$take$precautions$against$a$risk$of$harm$unless$the$risk$was$foreseeable$
(that$is,$it$is$a$risk$of$which$the$person$knew$or$ought$to$have$known)$
Ø Refer&to&Wyong%Shire%Council%v%Shirt$
$
*Note:$Hurdle$Requirement&
s&48(1)(b)&
A$person$is$not$negligent$in$failing$to$take$precautions$against$a$risk$of$harm$unless$the$risk$was$not$
insignificant.&
s&48(3)&
For$the$purposes$of$subsection$(1)(b)-$
(a) insignificant$risks$include,$but$are$not$limited$to,$
risks$that$are$far-fetched$or$fanciful;$and$
(b) risks$that$are$not$insignificant$are$all$risks$other$
than$insignificant$risks$and$include,$but$are$not$
limited$to,$significant$risks.&
‘Not&insignificant’&&
&&
Ø Not$an$insignificant$risk:$Just$short$of$being$a$
significant$risk$
Ø Significance:$Likeliness$of$the$risk$to$happen$and$
how$bad$is$the$risk$if$it$happens$(No$judgment$
yet)$
$
Case&
Details&
Wyong%Shire%Council%v%Shirt%
Ø Use:$Undemanding$test$of$whether$the$risk$was$
not$far$fetched$or$fanciful&
Ø Test:&Was$it$reasonably$foreseeable$that$the#kind#
of#carelessness#(conduct$of$placing$signs$where$
they$were$placed)$charged$against$the$defendant$
might$cause$damage$of$some#kind#to$the$
plaintiff’s$person$or$property,$or$to$a$class$of$
persons$to$which$the$P$belongs?&
Fact&
• P$is$a$water-skier$who$water$skies$on$lakes$
• Council$(D)$was$doing$dredging$work$(shallow$-$
dangerous)$$
• Deep$water$was$being$dredged$
• P$asserts$that$signs$were$placed$carelessly$$
• One$judge$dissented$saying$that$the$depth$of$the$
water$was$visibly$discernable$$
Bolton%v%Stone%
Ø Use:&Probability$of$harm$(Refer$to$s$48(2)(a))&
&
*Note:$The$greater$the$probability$of$harm$
occurring,$the$greater$degree$of$care$a$reasonable$
person$would$take$
Fact&
• D$is$a$cricket$club$and$regular$play$cricket$on$
level$cricket$ground$
• Ground$had$incline$slopping$at$the$edges$(i.e.$top$
of$the$ground$was$5m$higher)$
• Adjacent$properties$around$it$
• $Ball$hits$P$in$the$head$due$to$insufficient$
distance$and$fencing$(No$duty$due$to$risk$of$
harm$being$rally$low$–$so$no$need$to$take$more$
precautions$to$avoid$it)$
%Paris%v%Stepney%Borough%Council%
%
Ø Use:&Special$knowledge$(Refer$to$s$48(1)(c))&
Ø Test:&Did$D$know$or$ought$to$have$known$the$
special$concerning$P?&
&
Fact&
• P$was$injured$in$WWII$(blind$in$1$eye)$
• P$was$struck$by$a$rusty$bolt$in$maintenance$of$
car$in$a$garage,$which$flew$and$struck$his$good$
eye$$
• He$becomes$totally$blind)$$
Document Summary
Which characteristics of the d will be attributed to the reasonable person? (physical disabilities: there is very little authority as to whether this is taken into account in setting the standard cf contributory negligence. It is likely that even if it were, the operative issue would be whether the person was negligent for having allowed themself to be in the risk creating situation in the first place in light of their disability. The reasonable person is an objective standard. The reasonable person is a prudent person: But some characteristics of the specific d may modify the standard applied, although most do not. The standard of care expected of the d is that of a reasonable person in the person"s position . Standard: d with a mental impairment which may reduce their cognitive and foresight capacities will still be held to the standard of a reasonable mentally competent person.
