Key Concepts in Negligence and Civil Liability

• Negligence basics include three core elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, and harm (damage) resulting from the breach. In exam answers you commonly state these three elements and then apply the relevant law to the facts. A concise way to think about liability is:
  \text{Liability} \;\equiv\; \text{Duty of Care} \;\land\; \text{Breach} \;\land\; \text{Causation/Harm}
• The severity of harm affects how precautions are evaluated: more serious harm generally justifies higher or more stringent precautions. In the slides, this is linked to Paris v Stephenson Borough Council (as cited) to illustrate that precautions scale with potential risk.
• Exam framing matters: questions typically ask whether a party is liable for negligence (not necessarily to discuss defences unless specified). You discuss the three elements first, then defenses as an optional extension ("icing on the cake").
• Practical exam strategy emphasized in the transcript:
  • Do not bundle the three elements into one paragraph; separate them clearly.
  • Use three distinct IDACs (Issue, Duty of Care, Application/ breach/ causation) to ensure you cover each element thoroughly.
  • Separate IDACs help markers quickly locate the law applied to each element and reduce the chance of missing an issue.
  • In terms of formatting for exams, you can use three separate lines or a matrix; the key is clarity and coverage of each element.
• Vicarious liability (preview): next week will cover employer liability for employee negligence; it involves analyzing (1) whether the employer owes a duty of care, (2) whether it breached that duty, and (3) whether harm occurred, with the added dimension of the employer-employee relationship.
• The overall approach to answering questions is to identify the issues first, then apply the relevant legal principles to each issue, and finally provide a conclusion. Do not assume defences unless the prompt asks for them; if you do consider defences, present them after addressing liability.
• Practical note on exam logistics from the transcript:
  • You will be provided with multiple exam booklets; plan your time and layout to maximize clarity.
  • You can start with any question, but start with the larger, high-point questions to manage time.
  • Bring ample paper (e.g., 7 sheets, or more if desired); use sections to separate topics (contract, negligence, agency, business structure) for quick reference.
  • If you make a mistake, cross it out and rewrite; you have space to spread out your answers.
  • International students may need extra time to absorb the material; pacing and clear organization help.

The Three Elements of Negligence: Duty, Breach, Harm

• Duty of Care:
  • The obligation to avoid unreasonable harm to others; depends on relationship, foreseeability, proximity, policy considerations, etc.
  • In exam scenarios, articulate the existence or absence of a duty with reference to established categories or factors.
• Breach of Duty:
  • A breach occurs when the standard of care owed is not met.
  • Consider what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances; apply the law to the facts.
  • The degree of precaution may be influenced by the severity of potential harm (as discussed via the Paris v Stephenson Borough Council reference).
• Harm (Damage):
  • The breach must cause actual harm or damage to the plaintiff; causation must be established (but causation and damages are typically discussed after duty and breach in IDAC structure).
• The three elements must be addressed separately and then connected:
  • Issue: Was there a duty of care?
  • Duty: Was the duty breached?
  • Harm: Did the breach cause harm?
• Do not discuss defences in the initial liability analysis unless asked; defences are “icing on the cake” and optional.

IDACs: A Structured Approach to Each Element

• What is an IDAC?
  • Identify the Issue, State the Duty, Apply the Law, Conclude (IDAC). In practice, you can implement three separate IDACs for each element (Duty, Breach, Harm) to keep analysis organized.
• How to implement three separate IDACs for negligence:
  • IDAC 1 — Duty of Care:
  • Issue: Is there a duty of care owed to the plaintiff?
  • Law: Describe the standard or category of duty applicable to the facts (e.g., reasonable foreseeability, proximity, policy considerations).
  • Application: Apply the standard to the facts (e.g., did the defendant owe Eliza or others a duty to protect from harm from entering a public space?).
  • Conclusion: State whether a duty of care exists.
  • IDAC 2 — Breach of Duty:
  • Issue: Was the duty of care breached?
  • Law: Describe the breach standard (what would a reasonable person have done? What precautions are required given risk? Reference the severity of harm and any statutory requirements).
  • Application: Apply to the facts (e.g., failure to implement adequate precautions; issues like broken toilet handle; wet floor signage).
  • Conclusion: State whether a breach occurred.
  • IDAC 3 — Harm/Causation:
  • Issue: Did the breach cause harm and damages?
  • Law: Briefly discuss causation (cause in fact and legally sufficient causation) and damages if relevant.
  • Application: Link the breach to the actual harm suffered (e.g., injury, financial loss, loss of use of facilities).
  • Conclusion: State liability or no liability.
• Why separate IDACs?
  • It ensures you cover each legal requirement in a structured, checkable way.
  • It helps markers locate the reasoning quickly and reduces the risk of missing a required element.

Statutory and Case References Mentioned

• Civil Liability Act references cited in the discussion:
  • \text{Civil Liability Act, section } 47 (intoxication-related provisions mentioned in the context of the scenario)
  • \text{Civil Liability Act, section } 9(2) (breach of duty or minimum precautions—interpreted as the minimum precaution requirement)
  • \text{Civil Liability Act, section } 14(1) (related to a particular aspect of the duty/prevention framework in the scenario)
• Case reference cited:
  • Paris v Stephenson Borough Council (as mentioned in the slides) to illustrate how precautions relate to the severity of harm and breach conclusions.
• Other notes:
  • The discussion references a café scenario where the level of precautions (e.g., wet floor sign) is tied to the severity of potential harm and to apportionment of responsibility among multiple parties (e.g., contributory contributions). The key takeaway is that higher risk or severity may increase expected precautions, which informs breach analysis and possible contributory negligence considerations.

Practical Exam Strategy and Formatting Tips

• Start with the big points: focus on high-impact questions first to manage time.
• Structure: clearly separate the three elements (Duty, Breach, Harm) with three IDACs for readability and faster marking.
• Do not mix elements in one long paragraph; use separate sections or lines to improve clarity.
• If the exam asks about liability generally (not defenses), focus on liability rather than defenses. If defenses are explicitly requested, address them after establishing liability.
• Formatting options in the exam booklet:
  • You can use separate lines for each IDAC, or a matrix/table if permitted; the objective is to look organized and cover all points.
• Practical note for preparation:
  • Bring ample materials (sheets, clipboard, folder) to organize topics: contract, negligence, agency, business structure, etc.
  • Use page breaks and headings within your answer to make it easy to follow and mark.
  • Practice outlining answers to questions by identifying issues, applying law to facts, and concluding for each element.
  • For international students, allow time to absorb the material; structure helps with comprehension and speed.

Real-World Relevance, Ethical, and Practical Implications

• The emphasis on three elements reflects fundamental safety and liability principles in real-world settings: businesses and institutions owe a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to patrons and users.
• The discussion on intoxication and minimum precautions highlights how statutory requirements interact with factual scenarios to determine liability. This has practical implications for policy and risk management in hospitality, public facilities, and entertainment venues.
• Vicarious liability (covering employer responsibility for employees) is a critical concept for organizations to ensure appropriate supervision, training, and risk controls to mitigate liability.
• Ethical implications include the responsibility of organizations to act proactively to prevent harm, not just in compliance with minimum standards but in ensuring patron safety beyond the bare minimum.

Examples and Illustrative Scenarios from the Transcript

• High-risk activities (e.g., bungee jumping or scuba diving) versus lower-risk activities (e.g., tennis) were used to illustrate perceived risk and the need for precautions; the discussion suggested government precautions and how reasonable safeguards should reflect risk level.
• A hypothetical scenario where a person pays to use a public toilet but the door handle is broken and the user cannot access it, illustrating potential damages and the importance of accountability for facility maintenance.
• A scenario where a patron drinks alcohol (five glasses of wine) and how intoxication factors into liability and the applicability of the intoxication provisions in the Civil Liability Act.
• A café scenario discussing signage (wet floor sign) and the extent of cafe liability when harm occurs, including the notion that a venue may be partly responsible depending on the precipitating factors, while also highlighting the need to discuss contributory negligence and the separate elements of breach and harm.
• A discussion about whether a client (Eliza) could be considered liable for not bringing her children inside, raising questions about foreseeability, the scope of duty, and the potential for multiple liable parties.

Formatting and Study Habits to Adopt

• When drafting notes or exam responses, consider three distinct IDACs for each negligence element to improve clarity and marking efficiency.
• Use explicit headings and bullet points to organize content; avoid long, unstructured paragraphs.
• Include statutory references and case authorities where relevant, cited in LaTeX format for consistency:
  • \text{Civil Liability Act, section } 47
  • \text{Civil Liability Act, section } 9(2)
  • \text{Civil Liability Act, section } 14(1)
• Practice applying the law to facts: for each element, state the issue, the relevant law, apply it to the facts, and conclude.
• Build exam templates: problem statements with three IDAC sections, followed by potential defenses (if asked), followed by a brief conclusion.
• Time management: allocate a portion of time to outline, then flesh out each IDAC with precise analysis and cite authorities.
• For international students or those needing extra processing time, emphasize clear layout and legibility; consider using folders, tabs, or color-coding to locate sections quickly.

Quick Reference: Key Phrases to Use in Answers

• Duty of Care established by: foreseeability, proximity, and policy considerations; or established categories in case law.
• Breach occurs when: the standard of care owed was not met by the defendant’s conduct.
• Harm/Damage requires: a causal link from breach to actual harm; not all breaches result in actionable harm.
• Severity influences precautions: greater potential harm → higher standard of precaution.
• In exam framing: “Liable for negligence” rather than “Is there a defence?” unless asked to consider defences.
• Three clear IDAC paragraphs: one for Duty, one for Breach, one for Harm (each with issue, law, application, conclusion).

Summary of Actionable Takeaways for the Exam

• Always separate the three elements (duty, breach, harm) into distinct sections or IDACs.
• Begin with the big picture: identify the core issues and apply the relevant statutory and case law to each element.
• When discussing a scenario with multiple potential liabilities (e.g., public facilities, intoxication, contributory negligence), allocate responsibility among involved parties clearly and link to the statutory provisions cited.
• Use the Paris v Stephenson Borough Council reference to justify how precautions relate to harm severity when discussing breach.
• Be prepared to discuss vicarious liability next week and the additional layer of employer responsibility in negligence cases.
• Practice formatting strategies to speed marking: clear headings, bullet points, and separate IDACs.