Civil Liabilities Act 2002 (NSW) - Part 1A - Negligence

Question 1

As of May 2017 how may sections are in Part 1A - Negligence?

Answer 1

21 Sections

Question 2

How many divisions are there in Part 1A of the CLA?

Answer 2

8 Divisions

Question 3

List all division subheadings in Part 1A of the CLA 2002 NSW

Answer 3

1. Preliminary
2. Duty of care
3. Causation
4. Assumption of risk
5. Recreational Activities
6. Professional Negligence
7. Non-delegable duties and vicarious liability
8. Contributory negligence.

Question 4

Section 5

“Harm” means what?

Answer 4

“harm” means harm of any kind, including the following:

(a) personal injury or death,
(b) damage to property,
(c) economic loss.

Question 5

Section 5

” ______ “ means failure to exercise reasonable care and skill.

Answer 5

negligence

Question 6

Section 5

“personal injury” includes:

Answer 6

(a) pre-natal injury, and
(b) impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition, and
(c) disease.

Question 7

5A - Application of Part

5A (1)?

Answer 7

(1) This Part applies to any claim for damages for harm resulting from negligence, regardless of whether the claim is brought in tort, in contract, under statute or otherwise.

Question 8

5A - Application of Part

5A (2)?

Answer 8

(2) This Part does not apply to civil liability that is excluded from the operation of this Part by section 3B.

Question 9

5B General principles

(1) A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless:

Answer 9

(a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known), and
(b) the risk was not insignificant, and
(c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken those precautions.

Question 10

5B General principles

(2) In determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (amongst other relevant things):

Answer 10

(a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken,
(b) the likely seriousness of the harm,
(c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm,
(d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.

Question 11

Other principles

5C Other principles

In proceedings relating to liability for negligence:

Answer 11

(a) the burden of taking precautions to avoid a risk of harm includes the burden of taking precautions to avoid similar risks of harm for which the person may be responsible, and
(b) the fact that a risk of harm could have been avoided by doing something in a different way does not of itself give rise to or affect liability for the way in which the thing was done, and
(c) the subsequent taking of action that would (had the action been taken earlier) have avoided a risk of harm does not of itself give rise to or affect liability in respect of the risk and does not of itself constitute an admission of liability in connection with the risk.

Question 12

5D General principles

(1) A determination that negligence caused particular harm comprises the following elements:

Answer 12

(a) that the negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm (
“factual causation” ), and

(b) that it is appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused (
“scope of liability” ).

Question 13

5D General principles

(2)?

Answer 13

(2) In determining in an exceptional case, in accordance with established principles, whether negligence that cannot be established as a necessary condition of the occurrence of harm should be accepted as establishing factual causation, the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed on the negligent party.

Question 14

5D General Principles

(3) If it is relevant to the determination of factual causation to determine what the person who suffered harm would have done if the negligent person had not been negligent:

Answer 14

(a) the matter is to be determined subjectively in the light of all relevant circumstances, subject to paragraph (b), and
(b) any statement made by the person after suffering the harm about what he or she would have done is inadmissible except to the extent (if any) that the statement is against his or her interest.

Question 15

5D General Principles

(4)?

Answer 15

(4) For the purpose of determining the scope of liability, the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed on the negligent party.

Question 16

Onus of proof

5E Onus of proof

Answer 16

In proceedings relating to liability for negligence, the plaintiff always bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any fact relevant to the issue of causation.

Question 17

5F Meaning of “obvious risk”

Answer 17

(1) For the purposes of this Division, an
“obvious risk” to a person who suffers harm is a risk that, in the circumstances, would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of that person.

(2) Obvious risks include risks that are patent or a matter of common knowledge.
(3) A risk of something occurring can be an obvious risk even though it has a low probability of occurring.
(4) A risk can be an obvious risk even if the risk (or a condition or circumstance that gives rise to the risk) is not prominent, conspicuous or physically observable.

Question 18

5G Injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks

Answer 18

(1) In proceedings relating to liability for negligence, a person who suffers harm is presumed to have been aware of the risk of harm if it was an obvious risk, unless the person proves on the balance of probabilities that he or she was not aware of the risk.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is aware of a risk if the person is aware of the type or kind of risk, even if the person is not aware of the precise nature, extent or manner of occurrence of the risk.

Question 19

5H No proactive duty to warn of obvious risk

(1)( A person (“the defendant”) ________________ (“the plaintiff” ) to warn of an obvious risk to the plaintiff.

Question 20

5H No proactive duty to warn of obvious risk

(2) This section does not apply if:
(3) Subsection (2) does not ____ .

Answer 20

(a) the plaintiff has requested advice or information about the risk from the defendant, or
(b) the defendant is required by a written law to warn the plaintiff of the risk, or
(c) the defendant is a professional and the risk is a risk of the death of or personal injury to the plaintiff from the provision of a professional service by the defendant.
(3) Subsection (2) does not give rise to a presumption of a duty to warn of a risk in the circumstances referred to in that subsection.

Question 21

5I No liability for materialisation of inherent risk

Answer 21

(1) A person is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person as a result of the materialisation of an inherent risk.
(2) An “inherent risk” is a risk of something occurring that cannot be avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and skill.
(3) This section does not operate to exclude liability in connection with a duty to warn of a risk.

Question 22

5J Application of Division

Answer 22

(1) This Division applies only in respect of liability in negligence for harm to a person (“the plaintiff” ) resulting from a recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff.
(2) This Division does not limit the operation of Division 4 in respect of a recreational activity.

Question 23

5K Definitions

In this Division:

“dangerous recreational activity”

“obvious risk”

“recreational activity”

Answer 23

“dangerous recreational activity” means a recreational activity that involves a significant risk of physical harm.

“obvious risk” has the same meaning as it has in Division 4.

“recreational activity” includes:

(a) any sport (whether or not the sport is an organised activity), and
(b) any pursuit or activity engaged in for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure, and
(c) any pursuit or activity engaged in at a place (such as a beach, park or other public open space) where people ordinarily engage in sport or in any pursuit or activity for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure.

Question 24

5L No liability for harm suffered from obvious risks of dangerous recreational activities

Answer 24

(1) A person ( “the defendant” ) is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person (
“the plaintiff” ) as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff.

(2) This section applies whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the risk.

Question 25

How many subsections are in 5M?

Answer 25

12 subsections

Question 26

5M (1)?

Answer 26

(1) A person (“the defendant” ) does not owe a duty of care to another person who engages in a recreational activity ( “the plaintiff” ) to take care in respect of a risk of the activity if the risk was the subject of a risk warning to the plaintiff.

Question 27

5M (2)?

Answer 27

(2) If the person who suffers harm is an incapable person, the defendant may rely on a risk warning only if:

(a) the incapable person was under the control of or accompanied by another person (who is not an incapable person and not the defendant) and the risk was the subject of a risk warning to that other person, or

(b) the risk was the subject of a risk warning to a parent of the incapable person (whether or not the incapable person was under the control of or accompanied by the parent).

Question 28

5M(3) - (6)?

Answer 28

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a risk warning to a person in relation to a recreational activity is a warning that is given in a manner that is reasonably likely to result in people being warned of the risk before engaging in the recreational activity. The defendant is not required to establish that the person received or understood the warning or was capable of receiving or understanding the warning.
(4) A risk warning can be given orally or in writing (including by means of a sign or otherwise).
(5) A risk warning need not be specific to the particular risk and can be a general warning of risks that include the particular risk concerned (so long as the risk warning warns of the general nature of the particular risk).
(6) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning unless it is given by or on behalf of the defendant or by or on behalf of the occupier of the place where the recreational activity is engaged in.

Question 29

ss 5M (7) - (9)

Answer 29

(7) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning if it is established (on the balance of probabilities) that the harm concerned resulted from a contravention of a provision of a written law of the State or Commonwealth that establishes specific practices or procedures for the protection of personal safety.
(8) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning to a person to the extent that the warning was contradicted by any representation as to risk made by or on behalf of the defendant to the person.
(9) A defendant is not entitled to rely on a risk warning if the plaintiff was required to engage in the recreational activity by the defendant.

Question 30

5M (10)?

Answer 30

(10) The fact that a risk is the subject of a risk warning does not of itself mean:
(a) that the risk is not an obvious or inherent risk of an activity, or
(b) that a person who gives the risk warning owes a duty of care to a person who engages in an activity to take precautions to avoid the risk of harm from the activity.

Question 31

s5M 11-12

Answer 31

(11) This section does not limit or otherwise affect the effect of a risk warning in respect of a risk of an activity that is not a recreational activity.
(12) In this section:

“incapable person” means a person who, because of the person’s young age or a physical or mental disability, lacks the capacity to understand the risk warning.

“parent” of an incapable person means any person (not being an incapable person) having parental responsibility for the incapable person.

Question 32

5N Waiver of contractual duty of care for recreational activities

Answer 32

(1) Despite any other written or unwritten law, a term of a contract for the supply of recreation services may exclude, restrict or modify any liability to which this Division applies that results from breach of an express or implied warranty that the services will be rendered with reasonable care and skill.
(2) Nothing in the written law of New South Wales renders such a term of a contract void or unenforceable or authorises any court to refuse to enforce the term, to declare the term void or to vary the term.
(3) A term of a contract for the supply of recreation services that is to the effect that a person to whom recreation services are supplied under the contract engages in any recreational activity concerned at his or her own risk operates to exclude any liability to which this Division applies that results from breach of an express or implied warranty that the services will be rendered with reasonable care and skill.

(4) In this section,
“recreation services” means services supplied to a person for the purposes of, in connection with or incidental to the pursuit by the person of any recreational activity.

(5) This section applies in respect of a contract for the supply of services entered into before or after the commencement of this section but does not apply in respect of a breach of warranty that occurred before that commencement.
(6) This section does not apply if it is established (on the balance of probabilities) that the harm concerned resulted from a contravention of a provision of a written law of the State or Commonwealth that establishes specific practices or procedures for the protection of personal safety.

Question 33

5O Standard of care for professionals

Answer 33

(1) A person practising a profession (
“a professional” ) does not incur a liability in negligence arising from the provision of a professional service if it is established that the professional acted in a manner that (at the time the service was provided) was widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice.

(2) However, peer professional opinion cannot be relied on for the purposes of this section if the court considers that the opinion is irrational.
(3) The fact that there are differing peer professional opinions widely accepted in Australia concerning a matter does not prevent any one or more (or all) of those opinions being relied on for the purposes of this section.
(4) Peer professional opinion does not have to be universally accepted to be considered widely accepted.

Question 34

5P Division does not apply to duty to warn of risk

Answer 34

This Division does not apply to liability arising in connection with the giving of (or the failure to give) a warning, advice or other information in respect of the risk of death of or injury to a person associated with the provision by a professional of a professional service.

Question 35

5Q Liability based on non-delegable duty

Answer 35

(1) The extent of liability in tort of a person (
“the defendant” ) for breach of a non-delegable duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken by a person in the carrying out of any work or task delegated or otherwise entrusted to the person by the defendant is to be determined as if the liability were the vicarious liability of the defendant for the negligence of the person in connection with the performance of the work or task.

(2) This section applies to an action in tort whether or not it is an action in negligence, despite anything to the contrary in section 5A.

Question 36

5R Standard of contributory negligence

Answer 36

(1) The principles that are applicable in determining whether a person has been negligent also apply in determining whether the person who suffered harm has been contributorily negligent in failing to take precautions against the risk of that harm.

(2) For that purpose:

(a) the standard of care required of the person who suffered harm is that of a reasonable person in the position of that person, and

(b) the matter is to be determined on the basis of what that person knew or ought to have known at the time.

Question 37

5S Contributory negligence can defeat claim

Answer 37

In determining the extent of a reduction in damages by reason of contributory negligence, a court may determine a reduction of 100% if the court thinks it just and equitable to do so, with the result that the claim for damages is defeated.

Question 38

5T Contributory negligence-claims under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897

Answer 38

(1) In a claim for damages brought under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 , the court is entitled to have regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased person.
(2) Section 13 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 does not apply so as to prevent the reduction of damages by the contributory negligence of a deceased person in respect of a claim for damages brought under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 .