Breach of Duty of Care in Negligence Law

Duty of Care

Legal obligation to avoid harm to others.

Breach of Duty

Failure to meet the required standard of care.

Standard of Care

What a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

Reasonable Person Standard

Benchmark for determining negligence in legal cases.

Dalborn v Bath Tramways

Case illustrating acceptable risk in daily life.

Negligence Claims

Legal claims based on breach of duty of care.

Atlantic Cleaning & Security

Defendant in case of liquid spill incident.

Argo Managing Agency Ltd v Al Kammessy

Case where no breach was found despite spill.

Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer

Case involving diving accident and warning signs.

High Court Ruling

Court's decision emphasizing reasonable risk response.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Case highlighting higher duty for known individual risks.

Protective Goggles

Safety equipment not provided to a blind employee.

Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd

Case with no negligence due to lack of helmets.

Indoor Cricket

Sport where plaintiff suffered head injury.

Risk-Reducing Measures

Actions taken to minimize potential hazards.

Wilson v Nilepac Pty Ltd

Case involving negligence during exercise training.

Personal Trainer Negligence

Failure to prescribe safe exercise led to injury.

Lumbar Spine Prolapse

Injury resulting from improper exercise technique.

Supine Floor Crunch

Safer exercise initially prescribed to the plaintiff.

Court of Appeal

Judicial body reviewing negligence case outcomes.

Reasonable Response to Risk

Legal requirement for addressing foreseeable dangers.

Inspection Frequency

Regular checks to identify hazards, as in Al Kammessy.

Causation

Link between defendant's negligence and plaintiff's damage.

But For Test

Determines if damage occurred without defendant's actions.

Remoteness

Damage must be a foreseeable consequence of negligence.

Contributory Negligence

Plaintiff's partial fault reduces recoverable damages.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Plaintiff accepts risk, barring recovery of damages.

Social Utility

Value of an activity in assessing negligence.

Advanced Exercise

Exercise unsuitable for a plaintiff's fitness level.

Minimal Social Utility

Activity offers little benefit, increasing negligence risk.

Strong v Woolworths Ltd

Case showing causation via a chip on the floor.

Chappel v Hart

Failure to warn about risks caused injury.

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock

Unforeseeable fire from oil spill deemed too remote.

Rowe v McCartney

Psychiatric illness not seen as foreseeable harm.

Kozarov v Victoria

Causation met despite failure to implement safety.

Wrongs Act 1958

Victoria law allowing damage reduction for contributory negligence.

March v E & MH Stramare

Plaintiff 70% at fault, damages apportioned accordingly.

Imbree v McNeilly

Court outlined requirements for voluntary assumption of risk.

Kent v Scattini

Plaintiff did not consent to specific driving risk.

High Risk of Harm

Exposure to significant danger without precautions.

Injury Foreseeability

Expectation of harm must be reasonable and predictable.

Psychiatric Illness

Mental health issues resulting from negligence.

Adequate Precautions

Necessary measures to prevent foreseeable harm.

Proportional Damage Reduction

Adjusting damages based on plaintiff's fault percentage.

Negligence

Failure to take reasonable care to avoid harm.

Foreseeable Risk

A risk known or should be known by a person.

Insignificant Risk

Risks considered far-fetched or fanciful.

Rogers v Whitaker

Case emphasizing informed consent in medical practice.

Material Risks

Risks significant to a reasonable patient.

Peer Professional Opinion Defence

Protection for professionals aligning with accepted practices.

Civil Liability Acts

Legislation modifying common law negligence standards.

s 58 Wrongs Act

Sets reasonable expectations for professional skill.

s 59 Wrongs Act

Allows defence based on peer professional consensus.

Polsen v Harrison (No 8)

Case affirming peer opinion displaces usual negligence analysis.

Mules v Ferguson

Case where peer opinion defence failed due to inconsistencies.

Burden of Precautions

Effort required to mitigate risk of harm.

Probability of Harm

Likelihood that harm will occur without precautions.

Seriousness of Harm

Severity of potential harm from a risk.

Competent Professional

A professional meeting expected standards in their field.

Informed Consent

Patient's right to understand risks before treatment.

Third Party Situations

Involves parties without direct contact with original person.

Two Party Situations

Involves direct interaction between two parties.