Negligence in the High Court

Question 1

Sullivan v Moody (2001) — approach to duty of care?

Accepted Answer

The High Court rejected the Caparo three-stage test and the old "proximity" test, focusing instead on the salient features of the relationship and coherence with other legal principles. (Source: (2001) 207 CLR 562)

Question 2

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) — foreseeability?

Accepted Answer

A risk is reasonably foreseeable unless it is "far-fetched or fanciful"; the court then weighs magnitude, probability, cost of precautions and other responsibilities. (Source: (1980) 146 CLR 40)

Question 3

Rogers v Whitaker (1992) — held?

Accepted Answer

A doctor has a duty to warn of a material risk inherent in proposed treatment; the Bolam principle does not determine the standard for giving information. (Source: (1992) 175 CLR 479)

Question 4

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994) — held?

Accepted Answer

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher was absorbed into the principles of ordinary negligence in Australia. (Source: (1994) 179 CLR 520)

Question 5

Tame v NSW; Annetts v Australian Stations (2002) — held?

Accepted Answer

For psychiatric injury, "sudden shock" and direct perception are not preconditions to a duty; the test is reasonable foreseeability of psychiatric injury to a person of normal fortitude. (Source: (2002) 211 CLR 317)

Question 6

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B — what does it set out?

Accepted Answer

The general principles for breach of duty: the risk was foreseeable, not insignificant, and a reasonable person would have taken the precautions. (Source: CLA 2002 (NSW), s 5B)

1.Sullivan v Moody (2001) — approach to duty of care?

2.Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) — foreseeability?

3.Rogers v Whitaker (1992) — held?

4.Burnie Port Authority v General Jones (1994) — held?

5.Tame v NSW; Annetts v Australian Stations (2002) — held?

6.Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B — what does it set out?