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
Cases Cited
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 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 [2002] NSWCA 210 *
State of Victoria v Richards [1998] VSCA 103
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 75 ALJR 1570
Thomson v Connon (2000) 183 ALR 404
Valley Council v Standing [2002] 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
Abstract
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...
Cool...
thats really good...it's detail....i've got all the things that i need....it's easy for readers to view......thats really good!!!
3 out of 3 people found this comment useful.