Essay on Legt 1710 Assignment 1

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

The area in private law which is involved includes tort law of negligence. This case involves the alleged perpetrator (Woolworths) exploiting and interfering with the rights of the alleged victim and also failing to fulfill their duty of care towards the customer, in this case Kathryn Strong. Tort law of negligence entitles the alleged victim to take legal action against the alleged perpetrator which was successfully met in the Strong v Woolworths Ltd as woolworths failed to provide an adequate cleaning system to recognise any spillages resulting in Woolworths being accused guilty of negligence.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

“Defendant”, “you”, and “your” refer to the party or parties to whom these Interrogatories are directed and all other persons acting on behalf of such party, including, but not limited to,

When approaching the identification, assessment and management of risk, a knowledge of key legal principles and legislation will help practitioners to make informed decisions that promote both the involvement and interests of adults with a disability and older people, and their families. It will also support and promote best practice for professional staff involved in supporting positive risk management. An understanding of the following legislation and legal principles is important. However, where there is doubt about legal issues,

Identification of Parties and Procedural Details: Who is the Plaintiff/Appellant? Who is the Defendant/Appealer? What is the cause of action? Who prevailed in lower court? Who is appealing to what court?

The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (“the Act”) has been moderately principled and extremely effective in its reforms to duty of care in negligence. In light of the facts, the main relevant area of reform in the Act has been to liability for psychiatric injury. These reforms have largely been principled in following the recommendations of the Ipp Report and common law, but have made deviations in order to better achieve the goal of reducing liability for psychiatric injury. These have been very effective changes in achieving this goal. However, the principles the Act is based on, contradict legal and normative principles, creating injustice by disentitling people and enhancing the distinctions between physical and mental injury.

In this Brief, the petitioner Julie Williams will be referred to as Julie, Appellant. Respondent Jessie Sampson will be referred to as Jessie, Appellee.

There are three cases highlighted in this snippet of a long and drawn out court battle. (Does the group agree that there are 3 separate cases?)

However, assuming a duty was owed, it was consequently breached when Mr Stephens failed to advise Mr Dick of the live connection. Factual causation was satisfied, as had Mr Stephens warned Mr Dick, Mr Harley would not have died. The scope of liability does not extend to classes of persons with which Mr Harley falls within. Ultimately, Mr Stephens is not liable.

It referred to section 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and held that the appellant had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Woolworths' negligence caused her to fall and sustain an injury. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the primary judge and dismissing the proceedings. The Court of Appeal, in approaching the determination of causation under the statute, accepted that Woolworth’s negligent failure to implement a system of periodic inspection might be shown to have been a necessary condition of the appellant's harm by the process of probabilistic

Regina v. G and another (Appellants) (On Appeal form the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

For the holidaymakers to make a successful claim against Erin, they must first of all establish that a duty of care exited between them and Erin. Applying the test for duty of care as established in the case of Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568; would a reasonable person foresee the possibility of the claimant suffering damage as a result of the defendant’s negligence. In the case of Erin, it could be argue that a

6) Rule: The jury had to give all the punitive and compensatory damages amount to the plaintiff ( 517 U.S 559 )

According to the case Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 the duty of care states that the reasonable foreseeability test is sufficient to establish a duty of care where the damage is physical and careless manner is an act or an omission. There is a high risk of serious physical damage from the slippery mess not being cleaned up. Brett was the manager at the Tavern and owed every party goer, including Annie a duty of care. The physical damage that the plaintiff suffered was a fractured back. This test must be executed to determine whether a duty of care exists and looks to the foreseeability of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant. According to Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781 a