Sue Matt For F Shore Accident Falls Under The Australian Law Of Torts

1194 Words5 Pages
Scott’s intention to sue Matt for the off shore accident falls under the Australian Law of Torts. Derived from an old French vocabulary, the term tort refers to a wrongful act. It is paramount for Scott to understand that tort is very different from a regular crime. Whereas an individual suffers from injury due to an act of another person and the court can present a redress in a tort, in a crime, the wrong is perceived to target the entire community and the courts are required to follow the prevailing criminal law to offer requisite punishment to the person who is being accused of criminal liability. A person who is perceived to cause harm to another individual due to negligence, is perceived to have committed a tort of negligence. The…show more content…
Scott must successfully establish that the three elements that constitute a tort were inherent in the circumstances that led to his injury. The three elements are the existence of a duty to take care of his safety and interests by the boat owner; Matt’s breach of such duty of care and the possible quantification of damages that are due to him due to the harm or injuries caused by the breach of duty by Mr. Matt. It is these three elements that distinguish negligence from carelessness. The duty of care that Scott would be required to ascertain before the courts for a successful suit were first described by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 AC 562. While presiding over the case and in a majority ruling, Lord Atkin states that a duty to use ordinary care and skill arises in circumstances where the conduct of another might put others in danger. Reasonable care must be taken in particular circumstances to avoid omissions or acts that can be reasonably foreseen to as likely causes of harm or injury to another person. Whenever a person is engaged in actions whose outcomes he or she can reasonably foresee will likely to cause harm or injury to another person, a duty of care is then owed to that other person. Two tests must therefore be met to ascertain the existence of a duty of care from Matt – determination of proximity and foreseeability of the circumstances that led to Scott’s injuries. While writing for The Melbourne University Law Review Christian
Open Document