Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Torts Legislation List (Nsw) Notes

Law Notes > Tort I (Intentional & Negligence) Notes

This is an extract of our Torts Legislation List (Nsw) document, which we sell as part of our Tort I (Intentional & Negligence) Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Sydney students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort I (Intentional & Negligence) Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Torts I Legislation

s56 Definition: Good samaritan s57 Emergency will be a defence

Physical Injury

Good Samaritans

ss 55-58 CLA


ss 47-50 CLA

Mental Harm

ss 27-33 CLA

Mental Harm

ss 27-33 CLA

s58 No protection to rescuer (creator of the injury, failed to exercise reasonable care, unqualified professional level) s48 Definition: Intoxication s49 No additional DOC owed to the intoxicated s50 Criteria (intoxicated when injured; no liability owed to the intoxicated unless no fault on his side; contributory negligence; assessment of contributory negligence) s28 Mental harm arising from negligence

Duty of Care

s27 Pure mental harm or consequential mental harm s31 Recognised psychiatric illness s32(1) "Normal fortitude" required in legislation Psychiatric Injury

s32(2) List of the circumstances for the judgment of "normal fortitude" s29 Claims arising from nervous shock recoverable s30(1) Pure mental harm only s30(2) Plaintiff "witness" the accident or "a close family member" of the victim s30(5) Definition of "a close family member" s30(3) Contributory negligence by the victim

Duty of Care

Physical Injury

s30(4) Defendant's complete defence s33 Recovery for consequential mental harm

Torts I Legislation

s 5B(1)

s 5B(2) Breach of Duty

s 5C

s 141

Foreseeable = not far-fetched or fanciful: Wyong Shire Council v Shirt Not-insignificant: Paris v Stepney Borough Council Not an exhaustive test:

*Probability: Bolton v Stone; The "Wagon Mound" (No 2);

*Likely seriousness: Paris v Stepney Borough Council

*Burden of taking precaution: RTA v Dederer

*Social utility: Romeo v Conservation Commission Of the NT;

s 5B CLA Breach General

Other Principle:

*The extent of taking precaution, no need more than that

*Not a defence to ask others to do things in a different way

*Defendant's later action no defence The victim's (plaintiff's) knowledge as to the skill or experience of the driver is irrelevant to the judgement of damages.

s 5C CLA

Knowledge to the experience


Professional Negligence

ss 5O 5P CLA

Causation &

ss 5D 5E CLA

(1) Reintroduce the Bolam Principle Breach of Duty

(2) Courts' discretion. s 5O (3) Different opinion does not affect liability. (4) Peer's opinion does not necessarily to be universally or widely accepted. s 5P

Causation and Remoteness

Failure to warn in respect of the risk of death or injury constitutes a breach of duty.

s 5D(1)(a)

Talks about factual causation, in order to establish the factual causation, we need to show the "necessary condition requirement", what is formerly called the "but for" test March v E& MH Stramare; Strong v Woolworths

s 5D(1)(b)

Scope of Liability: consider remoteness, which includes policy, reasonable foreseeability, common sense, eggshell skull rule, and novus actus interveniens

s 5D(2)

Exceptional case if you cannot get over the hurdle of 5D(1), need to include the reason why and whether it is reasonable to impose liability on the defendant.

s 5D(3)(a)

The test of what the plaintiff would have done is subjective.

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort I (Intentional & Negligence) Notes.