This page is devoted to finding resources on Negligence. Personal Injuries and the Common law. It includes my (and others’) blog posts, leading cases, as well as articles that I have found useful:
RECENT CASES
- The following recent cases are ones that I consider to be significant for a variety of reasons:
- Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9 – redefines the parameters of when a duty of care is owed to a wrongdoer. My blog post on this case is here.
- Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12 comprehensively rejects the notion of recovering for ‘loss of a chance’ in tort. You can find my blog post on this case here.
- Somerville Retail Services Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority[2011] VSCA 166 examines the issue of the scope of ‘the predominant activity’ under a premiums order in relation to s26(1) of the Accident Compensation (WorkCover Insurance) Act (Vic) 1993.
LANDMARK CASES
These are some of the cases that have had an indelible effect on the law of negligence in Australia (as well as some articles discussing them):
- That Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is the most famous case in the law of negligence is almost beyond dispute. It paved the way for a plaintiff to recover for personal injury in the absence of a direct contractual relationship with the defendant.
- Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 : this case established the calculus of negligence test, which in turn established the general standard of care expected in negligence. This is largely similar to other cases throughout the common law world, e.g. the Learned Hand test in the USA.
- Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52 a decision about ‘nervous shock syndrome’; this case represented so much more – the solidfying of ‘proximity’ being the touchstone of determining a duty of care in the Mason era. Essentially a development by Deane J based on the ‘neighbour principle, this lead to a long line of authority using the concept of ‘proximity’ which has since been rejected by the Brennan, Gleesson and Frech Courts (see eg Miller v Miller, above).
- Sullivan v Moody(2001) 207 CLR 562 was significant for establishing reasonable forseeability as a test for duty of care.Burnie Port Authority v General Jones(1994) 179 CLR 520– important or developing the principle that any special rule relating to the liability of an occupier for damage caused by the escape of fire from his or her premises (the “ignis suus rule’’) had been absorbed into and qualified by more general rules or principles.
- March v E & MH Stramare(1991) 171 CLR 506– examines causation of damage in negligence, holding that the ‘but for’ test of causation always required common sense in its application.The Wagon Mound (No 1) & (No 2) – both remarkable cases factually (involving freak accidents on examining remoteness of damage and causation in negligence.Cook v Cook – showed that the standard of care expected from those with less skill can be lower considering a special relationship such as an instructor and a pupil. Note that Cook has since been overruled now that proximity is no longer considered to be the touch stone of the duty of care (see Miller and my post).
MyLearnedFriends 