10 Torts Cases to memorise

just 10 landmark cases

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

• Facts: Consumer found a decomposed snail in a ginger beer bottle.

• Principle: Established the neighbour principle.

• Significance: A person must take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to people closely and directly affected by their conduct.

• Exam application: Establishing the foundations of duty of care, particularly where the defendant’s conduct could foreseeably harm the plaintiff

Sullivan v Moody (2001)

• Facts: Doctors and child protection authorities investigated suspected child abuse.

• Principle: Reasonable foreseeability alone is insufficient to establish a duty of care.

• Significance: Courts consider whether recognising a duty would be coherent with other legal obligations and the relationship between the parties.

• Exam application: When determining whether a novel duty of care should be recognised.

RTA v Dederer (2007)

• Facts: A young man was injured after diving from a bridge into shallow water.

• Principle: A duty of reasonable care does not require eliminating every possible risk.

• Significance: Precautions depend on the risk, circumstances and practicality of the proposed precautions.

• Exam application: When arguing whether a defendant should have reasonably prevented an obvious danger or taken additional precautions.

March v Stramare (1991)

• Facts: A collision occurred involving a truck parked across a roadway and an intoxicated driver.

• Principle: The ‘but for’ test is not always sufficient to determine causation.

• Significance: Multiple factors can contribute to an injury. A broader common-sense approach may be necessary.

• Exam application: Where multiple contributing causes or competing explanations for an injury exist.

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009)

• Facts: Patrons were shot at a licensed restaurant. The owners were alleged to have negligently failed to provide adequate security.

• Principle: Negligence must be a necessary condition of the harm under s 5D(1)(a) CLA

• Significance: The plaintiff must establish that reasonable precautions would probably have prevented the harm.

• Exam application: Where the plaintiff cannot establish that the defendant’s proposed precaution would have prevented the injury.

The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961]

• Facts: Oil spilled into a harbour and later caused a fire, damaging a nearby wharf.

• Principle: The kind or type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable.

• Significance: The precise manner in which the damage takes place does not necessarily need to be foreseeable.

• Exam application: Determining whether the harm suffered was too remote or reasonably foreseeable.

Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001)

Facts: A pedestrian was injured by a bicycle courier working for Vabu.

Principle: Employment status depends on the totality of the relationship, not simply the contractual label.

Significance: Relevant factors include control, integration into the business, working arrangements and presentation to the public.

Exam application: Determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for vicarious liability.

Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC (2016)

Facts: A student was sexually abused by a boarding house master.

Principle: Consider whether the employee's authority, power or intimacy provided the occasion for the wrongdoing.

Significance: Examines the connection between the employee's role and the wrongful conduct.

Exam application: Determining whether an employer or institution may be vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful conduct.

Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985)

• Facts: A workplace injury raised questions about the respective responsibility of the plaintiff and defendant.

• Principle: Apportionment considers relative culpability and causal potency.

• Significance: Determines a just and equitable reduction in damages.

• Exam application: Where the plaintiff's own conduct contributed to their injury.
  
  

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980)

Facts: A waterskier was injured after striking an underwater object.

Principle: A risk is foreseeable if it is not far-fetched or fanciful.

Significance: Foreseeability does not automatically establish breach. Reasonable precautions must also be considered.

Exam application: Establishing whether the defendant could reasonably anticipate the risk of injury.