Topic 6Introduction to Negligence TOPIC OUTCOMES At the end of this topic you will be able to: explain the meaning of ‘tort’; explain the elements of negligence; apply the elements of negligence to a practical problem; explain the meaning of causation; discuss possible defences to negligence; explain vicarious liability; explain the purpose of theCivil Liability Act 2002(WA); locate legal material; and analyse and interpret legal information. 1.INTRODUCTION Consider the following cases: Onedayafactorywasfloodedafteraheavythunderstorm.Oil,which normally ran in covered channels in the floor of the building, flowed over the floor because of the storm. The day and afternoon shift workers spread 20 tons of sawdust over the floor to clean away the oil. One worker, who came on duty with the nightshift, was unaware of the conditions and, while moving a heavy barrel he slipped and crushed his ankle. Was the employer liable for the employee’s injury? Had the employer done all that was reasonable to prevent 1|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence anaccident?Whatcouldtheemployerhavedone?Wastheemployer negligent? Contractorsworkingonabuildingsiteblockedtheusualapproachtothe buildingonwhichtheywereworking.Peoplewereadvisedtoenterthe building through the adjoining property. One person fell through a hole on the adjoining property while using the right of way at night. Was the contractor liable for the person’s injury? Who should be liable? What would you have done if you were the contractor? The world in which we live and work is full of hazards and unexpected and potential dangers. Workplaces of all kinds and descriptions are also potentially hazardous places, and the possibility of accidents and injuries occurring are not unexpected. However, if a person is injured or causes an injury or some harm to another person, it does not mean to say that the person causing the injury or harm should be held legally responsible for the harm caused, or that the injured person will always succeeded in a claim. In this topic we will consider the meaning and scope of the tort of negligence. We will discuss the elements of negligence and possible defences. In the next topicwewillexamineparticularareasofduty,inparticularprofessional negligence and economic loss, in more detail. 2.TORT LAW The word "tort" means "wrong". The word comes into English from the ancient French word “tortus” which means “twisted, crooked or damaged”. A tort is a wrongfulactoromissionwhichgivesrisetoacivilactionagainstthe wrongdoerortortfeasor.Excludedfromthisdefinitionisanyactionfora breach of contract. Essentially, tort law seeks to protect the rights. The law of tort comprises many different torts which protect a variety of interests. These interests include a person's: (a)body ( the torts of negligence, assault and battery); (b)reputation (the tort of defamation); (c)freedom (the tort of false imprisonment); (d)title to property (the torts of trespass to land and conversion); (e)enjoyment of property (the tort of nuisance); and (f)commercial interests (the torts of negligent misstatement and passing off). 2|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence Despite their very different nature, most torts share common features, such as: Usually an element of fault is required, i.e. proof that the defendant acted intentionally or negligently. (Exceptions are certain torts of strict liability where a defendant is liable regardless of any personal fault.) Mosttortsrequirethatactualdamageorinjurybesufferedbythe plaintiff. Exceptions to this are the torts of defamation (libel), trespass to land and nuisance. Inmostactionsintort,theremedysoughtis damagesi.e.monetary compensation. Since the law of torts is concerned with compensating the victim rather than with punishing the wrongdoer, the general rule is that the plaintiff should be put in the position which he enjoyed before the commission of the tort. Other remedies available for some specific torts are injunction, abatement (or self-help), and restitution of property. Thedefendantmayraisespecificdefencesintortiousactions.For example, in negligence actions the recognized defences are contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. Apersonmaybeheldliableforthetortofanotherincertain circumstances. This is known as vicarious (or indirect) liability. Today, insurance spreads the burden of tortious liability. For example, there is an insurance component in motor vehicle registration fees. Consequently it is aninsurancecompany,ratherthanadefendantdriver,whichwillpay damages to a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident. There is significant inter-relationship between tort and contract, and tort and criminal law. All are distinct areas of the law, however on occasion a plaintiff can pursue more than one form of action. 3.THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE Negligenceisatortthatdetermineslegalliabilityforcarelessactionsor inactions which cause injury or damage. Negligence may be defined as the failuretodosomethingthatareasonablepersonwoulddo,ordoing something that a reasonable person would not do, as a result of which another person suffers damage. The damage may be personal injury (for example, a broken leg) or damage to property (for example, a damaged car) or monetary loss (for example, the plaintiff has lost money which was invested). In order to establish the liability of the defendant in negligence, the plaintiff must prove each of the following (Gibson & Fraser, 2007): 3|P a g e
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; that the defendant breached the duty of care by failing to conform to the required standard of care; and that there has been damage to the plaintiffcausedby the defendant whichwasareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceofthedefendant's conduct. A.DUTY OF CARE The plaintiff must prove the existence of circumstances which establish a duty of care(a duty to be careful)(Gibson & Fraser, 2007). This is a question of law and must be determined by a judge. Historically a duty of care would arise only in certain limited categories of recognisedrelationships,suchascommoninnkeepers,commoncarriers, blacksmiths, and surgeons. In other words a surgeon (the defendant) would owe a duty of care to the patient (the plaintiff). Later, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there was recognition by the courts that a duty of care could also arise in situations where there was no pre-existing relationship between the parties. These new situations included collision cases (where a road user was injured by the negligence of another road user). Even so, until the case ofDonoghue vStevenson[1932] AC 562 those duty of care situations remained limited to specific circumstances. In that case the House of Lords formulated the duty of care in terms of a general principle, rather than the restrictive “categories” approach that had previously existed. InDonoghue vStevensonLordAtkin spoke of the duty of care being owed to one’s “neighbour”. Two elements are contained in Lord Atkin's formulation of when a duty of care is owed: (a)the duty is owed to a person who is likely to be “closely and directly affected” by one's actions: this is the concept of “proximity”; and (b)thenatureofthedutyistoavoidactsoromissionswhichonecan “reasonably foresee” are likely to cause injury to another: this is known as the “reasonable foreseeability of injury” test. The decision inDonoghue vStevenson, and in particular the judgment of Lord Atkin,is perhapsthesinglemostimportantdecisionin thehistory of the modern tort of negligence. It has been widely accepted and applied in every common law country, including in Australian courts all the way up to and 4|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence includingtheHighCourtalthoughinmoderntimesmodificationtothe principle has occurred. Tosummarise:inordertoestablishtheexistenceofadutyofcare,the plaintiff must establish either that: 1.the plaintiff and defendant belong to one of the recognised categories of relationship such as manufacturers, authorities, builders and occupiers of premises ; or, 2.Incircumstancesthatare‘novel’thefollowingfactorsaretakeninto consideration; Considerationofriskofinjurytotheplaintiffthatwasa“reasonably foreseeable” consequence of the defendant's conduct, the defendant’s relationship to such a risk, the nature of damage suffered by the plaintiff and their vulnerability among other ‘salient’ features.’ 3.The absence of public policy or rules that would prevent a duty being imposed. Historically,arequirementforasufficientrelationshipof“proximity”or closeness between the plaintiff and the defendant was required. Often there is an existing relationship between defendant and plaintiff category. Note also that Gleeson CJ remarked inModbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 that most actions in tort arise out of relationships in which the existence of a duty of care is well established and the nature of the duty is well understood’. This case concerned a claim against an occupier that had turned off lights in a carpark. The plaintiff had been assaulted by three men and claimed the occupier was negligent. The High Court disagreed and found that the occupier not responsible due to a lack of control over the assailants’ actions. It should be noted that in recent years, however, the High Court of Australia has diluted the absolute need for proximity or closeness in establishing a duty of care although it may still be considered a salient feature. See for example Jones v Bartlett(2000) 205 CLR 166 in which architectural glass failed at a home (it had been found safe at the time of construction) and caused injury to a tenant’s relative. This was determined by the court not to be negligence to take reasonable care on the part of a landlord. Salient features were outlined by the court inCaltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar[2009] NSWCA 258 which concerned the negligence claim by the wife of a former refinery worker who contracted asbestos related disease following exposure to her husband’s work clothing. 5|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence B.BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE Once the existence of a duty of care is established, the court will ascertain whetherthedefendantbreachedthatdutybyfallingbelowtherequired standard of care(Gibson & Fraser, 2007). This necessitates an examination of the defendant's conduct and a finding of whether or not they observed an appropriate standard of care in the circumstances. In other words, was the defendant careful enough? The standard of care is objective and the standard requiredisthatofthe“reasonableperson”.Thereasonablepersonis someone of normal intelligence. In determining whether a person breached the standard of care, the court considers whether the risk or injury to the plaintiffwasreasonablyforeseeable,andthereasonablenessofthe defendant’s response to the risk. In so far as engineers are concerned, like other professionals the standard measured against in a negligence dispute is the ‘standard of the competent practitioner’ and on occasion will require the engineer to review and revise previous decisions in light of developments duringaproject.Thesewouldincludecircumstancessuchaswhere information was unavailable or overlooked initially and continues at least until practicalcompletion(Cooke2010:68-69).Anexampleoftheprofessional standard applied to engineers can be found inEckersley v Binnie & Partners (1988) 18 Con LR 1 where the Court of Appeal suggested that the appropriate standardtobeappliedtothedefendantengineerswasanalogousto competent engineers that specialise in water transfer systems. Also, an engineer or architect for example may be liable in negligence for a designthatdoesnotachievedesiredresultssuchaswasthecasein Consultants Group International v John Worman Ltd(1987) 9 Con LR 46 where plaintiff architects were found liable for a faulty design of an abattoir which was considered to be unfit for purpose. The amount and kind of care required varies from case to case. All the facts that would influence the conduct of a “reasonable person” in those particular circumstances will be taken into account. One of the issues that a reasonable person would take into account is the seriousness of the consequences should any of the risks inherent in the conduct eventuate. InParis vStepney Borough Council[1951] AC 367 the plaintiff, Paris, had only one eye. The defendant Council employed him as a motor mechanic. The Council was aware of his disability but did not provide protective goggles when the plaintiff was using a steel hammer to loosen a rusty bolt. A metal chip flew into his good eye resulting in him becoming blind. The court held that the Council was negligent in not providing goggles and, in doing so, said that although the risk of injury to Paris was no greater than to any other person employed as a mechanic, the seriousness of the consequences of that injury to Paris was much greater than to a person who had sight in both eyes, therefore the standard of care owed to Paris was greater. 6|P a g e
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence Another issue to consider is the degree of risk. InBolton v Stone[1951] AC 850 a woman was hit by a cricket ball as she stood in front of her house. The ball came from a cricket ground across the road which was surrounded by a 17 foot high fence. Evidence described how it would take an exceptional hit to clear the perimeter fence and that over the past 30 years very few balls had everbeenhitthatfar.Thecourtheldthattheriskwassosmallthata reasonablepersonwouldnotthinkoftakinganyfurtherprecautionsthan building a high fence. Reasonableness of precaution against likelihood of injury is also a factor in assessing the standard of care. InHaley v London Electrical Board[1964] 3 All ER 185 a blind man fell into a trench. While there was a visual warning sign the House of Lords held that a barrier should have been erected as it was foreseeablethatablindpersoncouldbewalkingalongthepathsothe electrical company should have taken precautions against it. Dangerous activities are also an issue to be considered by courts in assessing the appropriate standard of care. For example, inDominion Natural Gas Co Ltd v Collins and Perkins[1909] AC 640 Perkins was killed and Collins injured when a safety valve that discharged gas into the inside of a building instead of the outside caused an explosion. In determining that the company was liable in negligence, the court held that a greater standard of care ought to have been provided due to the inherent danger associated with venting excess gas inside a building. Note also that there is now legislation in most states and territories relating to howthecourtsmustassessstandardofcare.InWesternAustralia,for example, in theCivil Liability Act 2002(WA) the provision talks of a risk that is “not insignificant” (see below). C.DAMAGE Theplaintiffmustprovethathehassufferedactualdamageduetothe defendant'sconduct (Gibson & Fraser, 2007). This may be in the form of personal injury, injury to property or monetary loss. There are two aspects to theconceptofdamage:causationoftheinjury;andaplaintiffmayonly recover fordamage of a reasonably foreseeable kind. Causation Theremustbeadirectconnection(or“causalnexus”)betweenthe defendant's conduct and the damage suffered. In other words, the defendant's conductmusthavecausedthedamage.Causationisadifficultissue,as damage may be caused by a number of factors. 7|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence To assist in determining the cause of the injury the “but for” test may be used. This test was discussed inCork v Kirby MacLean Ltd[1952] 2 All ER 402 where the court said that the causal link was established if it was possible to say “but for” the breach of duty of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have suffered the injury. In this case a worker who suffered from epileptic fits was forbidden by his doctor to work at any heights. He did not disclose the information to his employerashefearedhewouldnotgetthejob.Whenworkingfroma platformsomesixmetresoffthegroundhefelltohisdeathwhile experiencing an epileptic fit. The platform he was working from did not meet statutorysafetyregulationsandhisemployerwasinbreachofstatutory duties. In deciding what was the cause of death the court decided that both the employer and employee were at fault. Causation therefore is a question of fact.Ifyoucansaythatdamagewouldnothavehappened“but-for”a particular fault, then that fault is the cause of the damage. But if you can say that the damage would have occurred anyway then the fault is not a cause of the damage. InYates v Jones(1990) ATR 81, a young woman was injured in a road accident by a drunk driver. She was offered heroin as a pain killer by a visitor and subsequently became addicted and spent copious amounts on the drug. At first she was successful in an action for personal injury against the drunk driver which included an amount of compensation for the heroin addiction. The decision to award damages for the heroin addiction was however reversed onappealasnocausallinkcouldbeestablishedbetweenthedriver’s negligence and her heroin addiction. The other general damages award for personal injury remained. Increasingly, the High Court has expressed the view that the “but for” test must be applied and interpreted along with “common sense.” This view was expressed inMarchvE & MH Stramare Pty Ltd(1990) 171 CLR 506. In this case a man parked a large truck in the middle of a six lane road in the early hours of the morning to unload the goods inside. The road was well lit and the hazard lights as well as the truck’s regular driving lights were on. The drunken plaintiff drove out from a pub car park and collided with the truck. The plaintiff sustained injury and sued the Defendant truck driver. The High court had to establishwhohadcausedtheharm.Itwasheldthatbothplaintiffand defendant had caused the damage and it was apportioned 70% plaintiff due to his drunkenness and 30% to the defendant truck driver. The recent caseAmaca Pty Ltd v Ellis[2010] HCA 5 also illustrates this notion astheHighCourtdeterminedthattherewasagreaterlikelihoodthat cigarette smokingfor over 25 years was more thanlikely the causeof a workers death rather than exposure to asbestos fibres in the workplace over the same time. Only reasonably foreseeable damage is recoverable 8|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence The defendant will not be liable forallthe damage caused by their breach of duty. The Privy Council established inWagon Mound (No.1)[1961] AC 388 that a defendant will be liable only for that damage which isreasonably foreseeableas a result of the defendant's conduct. The plaintiff shipbuilders and engineers owned a wharf in Sydney Harbour. The defendant had chartered a ship anchored about 200 metres away. Because of the defendants carelessness oil had spilled onto the surface of the harbour. Sparks from the plaintiff’s welding ignited the oil and caused a fire on the wharf which spread to a number of ships anchored at the wharf. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in proving negligence against the defendant as it was considered that no reasonable person could have foreseen the type of fire damage that eventuated. However in theWagon Mound (No.2)[1967] AC 617 the Privy Council again examined the concept of "reasonably foreseeable damage", and held that a particular type of damage will be reasonably foreseeable if the risk of it is "real", and not "far-fetched". The oil spill had given rise to a second case with a different plaintiff-the owner of a ship that was moored at the wharf and was also damaged during the fire. The court this time considered that the damagewas foreseeableand so the plaintiff was successful in the second case. 9|P a g e
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence Elements of an action in negligence Note: each element is a device to limit the liability of the defendant. 4.DEFENCES Therearetwodefenceswhichadefendantmayraiseagainstaclaimin negligence (Gibson & Fraser, 2007): (a)Voluntary assumption of risk, and (b)Contributory negligence. A.VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK (CONSENT) 10|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence This defenceis VERYrarely successful.Therehavebeen nomorethana handful of cases where the defence was raised successfully in the past 15 years in Australia. Where a plaintiff has fully and freely consented to the risk of harm caused by the defendant's conduct, the defendant may be relieved of legal liability for that conduct. Such consent on the part of the plaintiff is termed voluntary assumption of risk. Thus, for example, a person who plays a contact sport, such as Australian Rules football or rugby,maybe held to have voluntarily assumed the risk of accidental physical injury which they sustain in the ordinary course of the game. (Note that the risks consented to are only those inherent in the game: the participant does not consent to other negligent conduct on the part of the other players.) Case Study: Voluntary assumption of risk MorrisvMurray[1990] 3 All ER 801 The plaintiff had been out on a “pub-crawl”. At his second pub, the plaintiff joined the defendant, who was the owner of a light aircraft, and others and continued drinking. The plaintiff took the defendant and another person to the aerodrome in his car, and all three boarded the aircraft for a “joyride”. Flying had been suspended due to bad weather, and the defendant pilot, who had consumed 17 whiskeys, attempted a particularly difficult take-off. Shortly after take-off the aircraft crashed, killing the defendant pilot. The court held that the plaintiff, although drunk himself, was aware of the intoxication of the pilot and understood the risk he was taking in flying with the deceased in poor weather. As such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation for his injuries. InInsuranceCommissionervJoyce(1948)77CLR39,theplaintiffwas a passenger in a car that was involved in an accident and suffered injuries. The defendant driver was drunk. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation as they had voluntarily accepted a lift with a drunk driver and therefore had voluntarily assumed the risk that the driver would drivenegligently.LikewiseinImperialChemicalIndustriesLtdvShatwell [1965] AC 565 a shotblaster at a quarry was permanently injured when testing electrical circuitry. New regulations and employer instructions required this to be done from a shelter but both were ignored. The court held that the plaintiff 11|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence shotblaster had voluntarily accepted the inherent risk and was not entitled to compensation. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence to an action in negligence. Accordingly,the courts havetended to prefer thedefenceof contributory negligence,onthegroundsthatanapportionmentofliabilitybetween defendant and plaintiff is very often the most equitable solution. B.CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE Atcommonlawaninjuredpersoncouldnotrecoveragainstanotherin negligencewhenhisinjurieshadbeenpartiallycausedthroughhisown negligence. In other words, if the plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable care for their own safety (or the plaintiff's breach of a duty owed to the defendant) contributed to the plaintiff's injuries, they could not recover damages against the defendant. However,theLawReform(ContributoryNegligenceandTortfeasors' Contribution)Act1947(WA)nowprovidesforapportionmentofliability between the defendant and the plaintiff in such cases. In effect, the court will reduce the award of damages made against the defendant by the amount which it finds the plaintiff contributed to their own injuries. In other words contributorynegligencenowconstitutesapartialdefencetoaclaimin negligence Case Study: Contributory negligence Connors v The WAGR Commission(1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-187 A young boy was playing on railway tracks. He was injured by a train and it was held that the train driver was negligent in failing to see the boy and stop in time. It was held that both parties had been careless and the defendant was found 80% responsible and the plaintiff 20% responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. InIngram v Britten[1994] ATR 81, the plaintiff was injured whilst driving a tractor on property owned by the defendant. He plaintiff was driving recklessly at excessive speed, lost control and hit a tree. The tractor rolled over. There was no metal frame in the tractor which would have protected the driver in a rollover but the plaintiff was liable for contributory negligence because of the reckless driving. The court held that the employer was negligent for not fitting the metal frame but the plaintiff had contributed to the event by driving 12|P a g e
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence recklessly. Responsibility was apportioned by the court at 40% for the employer and 60% for the plaintiff. InBains Harding Construction & Roofing (Aust) Pty Ltd v McCredie Richmond & Partners Pty Ltd(1988) 13 NSWLR 437 a quantity surveyor supplied an incomplete schedule of quantities to be used by the plaintiff in submitting a bid for works at an aluminium smelter. As the plaintiff effectively underbid for the works (and was successful in being awarded the work) compensation was sought from the surveyor which was granted by the courts although one third of the damages were reduced because of contributory negligence on the part of Baines for not investigating the incomplete schedule and raising the issue with the defendants. Note that the apportionment will depend upon the circumstances in each case and will take into account such things as the potential for injury / vulnerability of the parties. In the case above, it can be seen that a train is not likely to be damaged in a collision with a boy and so the responsibility apportioned was greater i.e. 80% A frequently noted form of contributory negligence is the failure of a driver or passenger of a motor vehicle to wear a seat belt. In the event of injury, the courts have consistently held that the failure to wear seat belts has aggravated the injuries sustained. Often the reduction of damages is between 15%-25%. 5.VICARIOUS LIABILITY Liability in tort may be direct or vicarious (indirect). Direct liability arises through the breach of one's own duty - through personal fault or blameworthiness. Vicarious liabilityis liability imposed on one person for the acts or omissions of another (usually an employee but sometimes an agent).The person made vicariously liable is not personally at fault at all. In the employment context the principle of vicarious liability has its basis in a combination of policy considerations including: the belief that an employer should pay the costs of damage caused by their business operations; the fact that the employer is more likely to be able to afford to pay damages; and 13|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence the fact that the employer has avenues for passing on tort losses through liability insurance and higher prices. For example, an employer may be vicariously liable for the negligent driving of a person employed as a driver (the driver will also remain personally liable for negligent driving).However, if the driver were to assault a pedestrian for reasons of their own, the assault is not connected with the employment and the employer would not be liable in tort for that assault. In order for an employer to be vicariously liable for the acts of an employee the plaintiff must establish: that a tort was committed: most commonly, the tort is negligence but may also include other torts. thatthetortwascommittedbyanemployeeoftheemployer.An employer will not be vicariously liable for the torts of an independent contractor.To distinguish between an “employee” and an “independent contractor” a court will not necessarily be bound by the description used by the parties, but will apply its own tests.Tests used to distinguish an independentcontractorfromanemployeearethecontroltestand organisation test. Where the employer has a right to direct not only what thepersonmaydobutalsohowheshalldoit,thatpersonisan employee.This is referred to as the control test. Where the person is an integral part of the employer's organisation (eg a doctor in a hospital) that person is an employee.This is referred to as the organisation test. In Henson v Perth Hospital Board of Management(1938) 4 WALR 15 the plaintiff, an outpatient at a hospital, had been given ear drops by two nurses. Doctors at the hospital had in fact prescribed different ear drops but the nurses had mistakenly ordered the wrong ones. As a result of administering the incorrect medication, the plaintiff suffered ear damage. Thecourtfoundthedoctorsandnursestobeemployeesofthe defendant, and held that their conduct had been negligent.Accordingly, the defendant hospital was held vicariously liable in negligence. In recent times multi-factorial and multi-indicia type tests have also been used by courts to establish the existence of any employer-employee relationship by examining a multitude of factors including remuneration, payment of benefits, provision of tools and equipment amongst many other items. However, inDeaton’s v Flew(1949) 79 CLR 370 a barmaid who was angered by a patron’s bad language threw a glass of beer over him. The patron sued the hotelier claiming vicarious liability for the barmaid’s acts. The court however considered that the barmaid’s actions were a “spontaneous act of retribution” unconnected with her employment. It was neither an authorised or unauthorised mode of doing her work and therefore did not make her employer vicariously liable. 14|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence Also inStevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co. Pty Ltd(1986) 160 CLR 16 A truck driver who carried logs from the forest to a sawmill was injured due to negligence by the person loading the logs onto the truck. The truck driver claimed compensation for his injuries from the sawmill operator for whom the work was being carried out. The sawmill operator claimed that the truck driver and the person loading the logs were independent contractors and not employees. The Court agreed with this and held that both parties were independent contractors. Although the control test was relevant the court considered the case in its totality and examined a number of factors including the nature and degree of control, which provided the equipment, the hours of work, provision of holidays and sick leave and the method of termination of employment. thatthetortwascommittedbytheemployeewithinthescopeof employment. Negligent actions by an employee “at work” will be the responsibility of theemployerifthatactionwas“withinthescopeofemployment”. “Within the scope of employment” includes actually doing the job that the person is employed to do and doing things that are incidental to that job. For example, it could be that a person attending a staff Christmas party would be seen as acting within the scope of his/her employment, because attendance at the staff party is incidental to the employment. Iftheactionwaswhollyoutsidethescopeofemployment-i.e.the employee was on “a frolic of their own” - then the employer will be not held vicariously liable for the employee's tort. InTwine v Bean's Express Ltd[1946] 1 All ER 202, an employee gave a lift to a hitchhiker in his employer's van, even though this had been expressly forbidden by the employer.Due to the employee's negligent driving, the hitchhiker was killed.The court held that the employee had been acting outside the scope of his employment and the employer was not vicariously liable for the hitchhiker's death. InCommonwealth of Australia v Connell(1986) 5 NSWLR 218, a sailor, Dawson, and other sailors were engaged in a training exercise which involved lowering a man from a bridge into a creek.The sailors became boisterous and a number were pushed into the water. Dawson pushed Connell, who fell head first onto the creek bed, suffering serious injuries. The Commonwealth, which employed both men, was held vicariously liable for the torts of assault and trespass against Connell, which the court found were committed by Dawson while acting within the scope of his service.It should be noted that Dawson was also personally liable in tort for the assault and trespass against Connell. 6.CIVIL TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 15|P a g e
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence Where a person has suffered damage or injury as the result of the commission of a tort by another, they may sue the tortfeasor (wrongdoer), usually for damages. The party seeking damages (the plaintiff) must sue the tortfeasor (the defendant) in the appropriate civil court. The judge or magistrate must apply the appropriate rules of evidence during the trial. In a civil trial, the plaintiff has the onus of proof - the burden of proving the defendant's legal liability. The plaintiff must produce evidence as to the facts - i.e. what actually occurred. The court will then decide which legal principles apply to those facts. The standard of proof (i.e. degree of proof required) is “on the balance of probabilities”. In effect, this means that a court must be at least51%convincedbytheplaintiff'sevidencebeforeitwillfindthe defendant liable. 7.THE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 (WA) Recent trends in negligence have seen the impact of liability on professions suchasthemedicalprofessionandinsurancepremiumsthroughouthave increased phenomenally, to the point were many professionals simply cannot afford to continue operating because it is no longer economically viable to do so. This has also impacted heavily on recreational activities and sports where small clubs and organisations simply cannot afford the insurance. To address this and other problems such as the increasingly larger amounts of damages being awarded, theCivil Liability Act 2002(WA) was passed. Before this, there was no specific legislation dealing with negligence. The laws of negligence were largely case based (common law made by judges). Apart from putting in legislative form the basic principles of standard of care, causation and remoteness, the important contributions it makes are: Section 5B: changes the definition of foreseeability from being ‘not far- fetched’ to ‘not insignificant’. This means that we have a duty of care to protect against risks which are significant rather than risks which are not far-fetched. This has the effect of making it more difficult to show that a duty was owed and breached. Section 5H: states that there is no liability for harm from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities Section 5I: states that there is no liability for recreational activities where there is a risk warning 16|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence From an engineering point of view, the importance is mainly the ‘raising of the bar’ for liability from being responsible for risks that are ‘not far-fetched’ to risks that are ‘significant’. 8.SUMMARY In this topic we discussed the meaning of negligence. You will realise that to succeed in a claim against another party for negligence a number of elements must be present. Not every type of careless behaviour will constitute a legal actionfornegligence.Toproveanactionfornegligencetheplaintiff(the injured party) must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty of care and that the plaintiff suffered actual damage that is not too remote from the defendant’s conduct. 17|P a g e
Topic 6Introduction to Negligence TUTORIAL QUESTIONS 1.Define the tort of negligence. 2.Howdocourtsassesstheappropriatestandardofcaretoapplywhen assessing negligence? What factors are used for this? 3.What does ‘causation’ in the element of damage refer to? Be sure to include case examples to illustrate your point. 4.Why do you think that Voluntary Assumption of Risk remains unpopular in Australian courts? Why is Contributory Negligence preferred? 5.Explain, using examples, Vicarious or indirect liability. What must be proven to be successful in an action based on this type of liability? 6.Ethan operates a small engineering business in Como, a riverside suburb of Perth.Heusesanelectricpoweredforklifttomovestockaroundhis workshop. One day the fork lift develops a problem with a solenoid and can no longerbeused.EthanarrangestohavetheforkliftrepairedbyPreston Engineering who complete the repairs in 2 days. Sometime later the fork lift again developed a problem this time, unfortunately, causing the fork lift to accelerate unexpectedly leading to an accident at the rear of the workshop where damage of $750000 was sustained. Moreover, Ethan has a torn cruciate tendon in his foot as a result of the accident and can’t play cricket on the weekend which has upset his young son Finn. Ethan wishes to also receive $1900 to account for distress over the lost cricket match. Using the four step process, explain the liability (if any) of Preston Engineering to Ethan in the tort of negligence. Preston Engineering has, in fact, accused Ethan of poor maintenance of the fork lift as they claim the forklift’s service schedulerecordsrevealedsomescheduledservicesweremissedorlate although several were on time. Moreover, a recall notice from the fork lift manufacturer was ignored last year although it concerned the fork lift’s lifting system. 18|P a g e