Negligence II Breach Flashcards
What standard of care is applied to children in negligence cases, as held in McHale v Watson (1966)?
A child is expected to exercise the degree of care reasonably to be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence, and experience.
What were the facts in McHale v Watson (1966)?
A 12-year-old boy threw a sharpened metal dart at a post; it ricocheted and injured a 9-year-old girl. The court held the boy was not negligent due to his age and understanding.
What is the legal position on intoxication affecting standard of care as established in Joslyn v Berryman (2003)?
A person’s intoxication does not lower or raise the standard of care they are owed.
What did the court hold in Carrier v Bonham [2001] QCA 234 regarding mental illness and negligence?
Mental illness does not reduce the standard of care owed; defendants are judged by the standard of a reasonable person regardless of psychiatric conditions.
What standard of care is owed by a learner driver according to Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40?
A learner driver owes the same objective standard of care as any other driver, regardless of their inexperience.
What case overruled the decision in Cook v Cook (1986) regarding the standard of care owed by learner drivers?
Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40.
Why was the employer held liable in Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367?
Because the employer knew the worker was blind in one eye and failed to provide goggles, leading to total blindness — greater harm required greater precautions.
Why was Caledonian Collieries held liable in Caledonian Collieries Ltd v Spiers (1957)?
The court found the failure to install inexpensive safety catch-points on a dangerous railway incline was unreasonable, despite economic arguments.
What principle did Bolton v Stone [1951] establish in negligence law?
A low probability of harm may mean no breach of duty, even if the risk is foreseeable — precautions depend on how likely injury is.
What was the significance of Vincent v Woolworths Ltd [2016] NSWCA 40?
It clarified that even foreseeable risks must be ‘not insignificant’ to warrant precautions under s 9(b) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).
Why was the fire brigade not found negligent in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954]?
The social utility of saving lives justified taking some risk, even if injury occurred during emergency response.
Why was liability denied in Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540?
Because the Hepatitis A outbreak was the result of an extremely rare environmental sequence, and reasonable precautions like testing or delay were impractical, expensive, or impossible to implement effectively.
What reasoning did the High Court apply in Graham Barclay Oysters v Ryan regarding breach of duty?
The Court held that although the risk was serious, the low probability and high burden of precaution meant there was no breach of duty under the calculus of negligence.
Why was the Conservation Commission not held liable in Romeo v Conservation Commission (NT) (1998) 192 CLR 431?
The High Court found that the risk of falling off the cliff was obvious, and the cost and environmental impact of fencing made it unreasonable to require that precaution.
What factors did the Court consider in Romeo v Conservation Commission when assessing breach?
The obviousness of the risk, the high cost of fencing, and the impact on natural beauty — all weighed against requiring the defendant to fence the cliff.
