Australia · Year 1 · Torts
Duty, Causation & Psychiatric Harm
More negligence cases and the civil liability Acts.
Space flip · ← → navigate · S save
Show all 8 questions and answers in this book
1.Perre v Apand (1999) — held?
A duty to avoid pure economic loss arose where the plaintiffs were vulnerable (unable to protect themselves) and the defendant knew of the risk to an ascertainable class.
(1999) 198 CLR 180
2.March v E & MH Stramare (1991) — causation test?
Causation is a question of fact decided by common sense; the "but for" test is not the exclusive test.
(1991) 171 CLR 506
3.Chappel v Hart (1998) — held?
A surgeon who failed to warn of a risk that then materialised was liable even though the risk would have existed if surgery had happened later.
(1998) 195 CLR 232
4.Imbree v McNeilly (2008) — held?
A learner driver owes the same standard of care as an ordinary competent driver.
(2008) 236 CLR 510
5.Tame v NSW; Annetts v Australian Stations (2002) — held?
Recovery for negligently caused psychiatric injury does not require a "sudden shock" or direct perception; the test is reasonable foreseeability of injury to a person of normal fortitude.
(2002) 211 CLR 317
6.Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994) — held?
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher has been absorbed into the ordinary principles of negligence in Australia.
(1994) 179 CLR 520
7.Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B?
A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions unless the risk was foreseeable, not insignificant, and a reasonable person would have taken those precautions.
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B
8.Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5D?
Causation has two elements: factual causation (a necessary condition) and scope of liability.
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5D