Australian Law Assignment
Question: The test in Australia has been applied as a two part test, one of foreseeability and proximity. Discuss the elements of the law of negligence highlighting recent developments.
Table of Cases Cited
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman  2 AC 605
Chapman v Hearse (1962) 106 CLR 112
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932} AC 562
Hill v Van Erp (1997) 71 ALJR 487
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 115 CLR 549
Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 164 ALR 606
Pyrenees Shires Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330
RTA v McGuinness  NSWCA 210 *
State of Victoria v Richards  VSCA 103
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 75 ALJR 1570
Thomson v Connon (2000) 183 ALR 404
Valley Council v Standing  NSWCA 359 *
* Both cases do not appear in list of references because they were already cited in Tony Scott (2002).
Beware of obvious risk - is the tide turning against plaintiff? Retrieved September 29, 2003 from http://www.mcmahons.com.au/wpc/main.phpo?SID=6
This paper consists of a discussion on the two requirements for the duty of care, one of foreseeability and proximity. It will look at Lord Atkin's statement in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932} AC 562 where Lord Atkin first mentions the requirement for proximity and reasonable foreseeability in determining a duty of care. By relating to Chapman v Hearse (1962) 106 CLR 112, this paper will discuss the requirement for Reasonable foreseeability. The paper will also discuss the requirement for proximity by discussing such cases as Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 115 CLR 549 and Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423. It will also highlight the current approach towards both foreseeability and proximity by viewing such cases as Sullivan...