10. DOC (Negligence) Flashcards

Question

When should salient features be analysed?

Answer 1

a series of salient features which should be analysed in instances where there is no clear/established category of duty, to examine how they affect the appropriateness of imputing a legal duty to take reasonable care to avoid harm or injury.

Answer 2

There is a duty imposed on school authorities to supervise children especially younger children as they are more immature and prone to 'mischief'

Answer 3

a) serious joint illegal enterprises b) police investigations of crime c) police response to emergency call d) conflicting responsibilities- legal coherence & consistency e) active war time operations

Answer 4

Miller v Miller - no DOC when a joint illegal enterprise, unless they take all reasonable steps to withdraw from enterprise. There's no protection for a criminal's offence

Answer 5

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 6

The police don’t owe a DOC to members of the public, including potential victims of a serial offender, when discharging its functions of investigating & suppressing crime. Claims cannot be brought for operational damages

Answer 7

applied position in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. The police did not owe a DOC to a specific member of the public where they were aware/ought reasonably to have been aware, of a threat to her life or physical safety. Nor did they owe such a duty where a member of the public had given them apparently credible evidence that an identifiable third party presented a specific and imminent threat to her life or physical safety.

Answer 8

YES Cf Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (bystander injured by police operations)

Answer 9

conflicting responsibilities, legal coherence. considering whether the existence of a DOC would impair the ‘coherence of the law’, State community welfare officers & medical practitioners carrying out statutory functions of investigating allegations of child sexual abuse owed no DOC to the child’s parents in respect of the accuracy of the investigation. In this case, there'd been 2 conflicting DOCs under the law, but the statutory DOC to the children was superior.

Answer 10

Psychiatric injury

Answer 11

1. RF of psychiatric injury (‘Normal fortitude’ of the plaintiff is relevant to est. this) 2. At CL, there must be a relationship btw the parties, such that the D should have had the P in contemplation as a person closely & directly affected by the D’s conduct No requirement of ‘sudden shock/direct perception’ through sight/hearing by the P of a distressing phenomenon/its immediate aftermath.

Answer 12

Shaw Savill & Albion Co v The Commonwealth , | No DOC owed by Crown in war.

Answer 13

Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) {This is the modern approach}

Answer 14

Instead of having control mechanisms, the principles of N were instead applied to determine the existence of a duty of care in respect of negligently inflicted psychiatric injury (nervous shock).

Answer 15

DOC in respect of psychiatric injury requires RF on the part of a person in the position of the defendant of injury of that kind to a person in the position of the P

Answer 16

the absence of normal fortitude doesn't preclude the existence of a DOC but is relevant to whether the psychiatric injury is RF

Answer 17

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis | a teacher has the same DOC of a careful parent

Answer 18

1. Essentially just apply CLA s30-32 making distinction btw pure & consequential mental harm - --> must Show DOC not to negligently inflict psychiatric injury & - --> RF- D ought to have seen that person of normal fortitude in the circumstance would've suffered recognised injury

Answer 19

Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002)

Answer 20

Wicks v State Rail Authority. | It also satisfied s30(2) that a witness at a scene was a valid category of persons suffering nervous shock

Answer 21

IN terms of conflicting statutory duties, whether CL DOC owed by staff to protect from harm caused by mentally ill patients, statutory duties must be considered. DOC related to mental health patients must be flexible to allow for job efficiency