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

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

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: “The first question is whether the circumstances disclose reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to establish prima facie duty of care. The first inquiry at this stage is whether the case falls within or is analogous to a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The next question is whether this is situation in which a new duty of care should be recognized. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy consideration outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It is useful to expressly ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. This part of test only arises in cases where the duty of care asserted does not fall within a recognized category. The trial judge concluded that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in negligence and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring a class action”.

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

37. In negligence cases, Defendants are generally held to the standard of a reasonable person.

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

An intentional tort case is proved by the plaintiff showing that the defendant intentionally injured him/her (1). In a negligence case, the plaintiff shows that the defendant did not act carefully as the law requires and therefore should be liable for any damages to the plaintiff (1). The strict liability cases occur when a plaintiff suffers damages even though the defendant acted carefully and with no intent of harm being done to them (1).

The plaintiff must prove that there was negligence from the defendant’s side, which resulted with the injury and they are to be blamed. Negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury, and whether a legal duty exists is something that needs to be solved within the court. In this case, what needs to be determined is whether the City of Elsewhere and/or Officer Ruthless had a duty to Susie Marks regarding to her riding in the camper of the truck, and if so, to then determine the actual cause of the injuries to Susie. The actual cause refers to what really caused the injuries.

Even though he might be negligent infliction of emotional distress and was being evaluating by a psychiatrist it is still unknown. In addition, Tara’s Family must show specific parts or an oversight that Douglas was liable, for instance they can argue that he omitted informing the authority or tara about the intentions Robert, something that he could have done, Perhaps it would have saved Tara’s life. Tara’s family will be hold the burden of proving that Dr. Douglas acted negligently, therefore breaching his legal duty of care. Even though the requirement to prove loss or damage, Tara’s family will provide that, as a result of Douglas breach of duty, they suffered a loss or damage , which they can support by claiming that this breach caused Tara’s death. However, it must be proved that Tara’s death is traceable to Douglas breach of legal duty, failure to which Tara’s family claim will be consider irrelevant or therefore unchangeable. Douglas has a variety of argument that can support his defense against the negligence claim. Douglas can raise a defense by affirm evidence to demonstrate Tara’s or her family’s

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Whether the breach of duty has caused the plaintiff’s injury is the third element of negligence. Requirements for causation are causation in fact and proximate cause. Causation in fact is determined by the “but for” test, which means if it was not for the defendant’s breach of duty, harm or injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause is when the connection between the action (breach of duty) and the injury is strong enough to impose liability. Another issue that needs to be considered is foreseeability because the defendant’s action must have created a foreseeable risk of injury. In this case, the crew of Titanic was navigating the ship during the night at high rate of speed in water with

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.