Here you will find both extended and summarised torts law notes for the entire Monash University topic (Both Torts A and Torts B).
The summary notes are an excellent exam help, with steps to work out whether a particular tort is found in a problem question, and relevant precedent and case citations for that HD answer. They are short enough for use in an exam, but detailed enough that you will never miss a point.
The extended provide comprehensive information about all areas of the subject...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Torts Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Defences
Contributory Negligence
It can be a complete defence Section 63: If it is just an equitable, damages can be reduced by 100%
Identify the PLAINTIFF’s alleged negligent act that caused/contributed to their harm
Did the P fail to take reasonable care of themselves?
Section 62: (1) determined according to the same principles as breach
(a) The standard of care required of a person who suffered harm is that of a reasonable person in the position of that person; and
(b) The matter is to be determined on the basis of what that person knew or ought to have known at the time
Section 26: In order to show contributory negligence the P must have failed to take reasonable care for her safety (breach), and
Was there a duty of care?
A person usually owes a duty of care to themselves
GO BACK TO DUTY OF CARE
Was there a breach of that duty?
GO BACK TO BREACH: what is the standard of care and did P’s actions fall short of that standard
In determining breach of duty, look at (amongst other things):
Sudden emergency (person taking a risk)
Where D’s negligence places P in situation of sudden emergency, level of care required is lower
Allows a greater deal of leniency in addressing the P’s behaviour Caterson v Commissioner for Railways
Situation of inconvenience
If the degree of inconvenience is high and the risk is low, level of care required is lower and vice versa
“If the P has been placed in a situation of danger or inconvenience as a result of the D’s negligence, then whether the P’s action is reasonable is determined by comparing the degree of inconvenience against the risk taken to avoid it Caterson v Commissioner for Railways
Anticipating Negligence: In determining how to act with care, a reasonable person would account for the possible carelessness (and negligent acts) of others Jones v Livox Quarries
Does not apply when it is ‘gross negligence’ or carelessness of others that could not be anticipated Jones v Livox Quarries
Minority
When looking at the reasonableness of a child, you look at the standard of a reasonable child the same age as P and their intelligence, experience and development Kelly v Bega Valley County Council
However, if the child suffered from a mental or physical impairment, that might be taken into account in determining standard of care
Was the P’s harm partly as a result of the P’s failure to take reasonable care?
Section 62: (1) determined according to the same principles as breach
Section 26: This failure to take reasonable care must contribute to her harm (causation).
Causation
GO BACK TO CAUSATION
Either the P’s failure to take care contributed to the accident occurring or contributed to the injury (I.e. it’s nature or extent
Where the accident and injury are caused in different circumstances, the question is what is the cause of the damage, not the cause of the accident. It is enough to show that his or her negligence contributed to the harm suffered as a result of the accident Froom v Butcher
Remoteness
GO BACK TO REMOTENESS
What reduction of damages is just and equitable?
Section 26: If a person suffers damage partly as the result of the claimant’s failure to take reasonable care (contributory negligence) and partly of the wrong of any other person or persons: (b) damages recoverable must be reduced to be just and equitable, having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.
Compare the degree of each parties’ departure from their respective standards of care Pennington v Norris. Look at:
The number of people put at risk by the failure to take care Kelly
The duration of departure from the standard of care Kelly
The maturity of the actor Kelly
The obvious dangerousness of the act/omission
Relative importance in causing the damage
The culpabilities of the parties Pennington v Norris
Conclude: “P was 20% responsible for his/her harm and therefore his/her damages will be reduced by 20%”
Volenti non fit injuria (Voluntary Assumption of Risk) total defence
Characterise the activity and the risk alleged to be assumed
Was it an obvious risk?
S 54 (1) if the risk of harm is an obvious risk, the person who suffered harm (P) is presumed to have been aware of the risk, unless the person proves on the balance of probabilities that the person was not aware of the risk
Section 53(1) an obvious risk is a risk that, in the circumstances, would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of that person.
(2) include risks that are patent or a matter of common knowledge.
(3) can be an obvious risk even though it has a low probability of occurring.:
(4) A risk is an obvious risk even if the risk) is not prominent, conspicuous or physically observable.
(5) To remove any doubt, it is declared that a risk from a thing, including a living thing, is not an obvious risk if the risk is created because of a failure on the part of a person to properly operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless the failure itself is an obvious risk.
If P cannot rebut the presumption, D will only need to establish P voluntarily incurred the risk for the defence to succeed
If P can rebut the presumption, D must prove following three elements of the defence:
Knowledge: That P knew of the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the risk
Subjective test: question of whether P actually knew of the fact and circumstances. You need actual, not constructive knowledge Scanlon v American Cigarette Company
Inferred from all the evidence. When it has been made clear that a P should not do something in a certain way, this will make it easier for D to prove defence ICI v Shatwell
Understanding: That P fully appreciated the risk inherent in those facts
Subjective test
If P appreciates that the risk – though remote – might eventuate, that is sufficient. P need not believe it will in fact materialise ICI v Shatwell
Must be a sufficiently full appreciation. If you are intoxicated you are...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts Law Notes.
Here you will find both extended and summarised torts law notes for the entire Monash University topic (Both Torts A and Torts B).
The summary notes are an excellent exam help, with steps to work out whether a particular tort is found in a problem question, and relevant precedent and case citations for that HD answer. They are short enough for use in an exam, but detailed enough that you will never miss a point.
The extended provide comprehensive information about all areas of the subject...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started