Week 4 Duty of care: economic loss, mental harm and other situations

Question 1

In what circumstances will something be reasonably forseeable?

Answer 1

When the risk is not far fetched or fanticiful

Question 2

What is nonfeasance?

Answer 2

An omission to act

Question 3

Is foreseeability sufficient to establish a DoC in cases of pure mental harm?

Answer 3

No

Question 4

Is boisterousness sufficient to ogive rise to a DoC in cases involving harm caused by a third party?

Answer 4

No, we need a clear threat in order for harm to be forseeable

Question 5

To recover damages for pure mental harm, does P need to establish the mental harm has resulted from a sudden shock?

Answer 5

It depends – s72 of the Wrongs act 1958 (Vic) provides that this is a relevant circumstance

Question 6

In what circumstances may liability in negligence based on an omission to act arise?

Answer 6

Where the D is in a pre-existing ‘protective’ r/ship with the P,
Where there is a r/ship of control and whether there is a reliance by the P on previous conduct by the D

Question 7

True or False: Under s72 of the wrongs act 1958 (vic) D does not owe a DoC to take care not to cause the P pure mental harm unless D foresaw or ought to have forseen that a person of normal fortitude might, in the circumstance of the case, suffer a recognised psychiatric illness if reasonable care were not taken

Answer 7

True

Question 8

When will a duty of care be owed in a case of nonfeasance in the context of statutory powers?

Answer 8

Where there is reliance by the P and the decision maker is in the operational area of the statutory power

Question 9

What did the court conclude about the scope of the DoC in NSW v Godfrey?

Answer 9

The indeterminate nature of the scope of liability rendered the imposition of duty impractical and to onerous

Question 10

What type of harm needs to be suffered to establish a DoC in cases of pure mental harm?

Answer 10

A recognised psychiatric illness

Question 11

Is foreseeability of harm sufficient to establish a DoC in a case of nonfeasance in the context of statutory powers?

Answer 11

No

Question 12

Are casual comments at social events sufficient to establish a negligent misstatement?

Answer 12

No

Question 13

Applying Janesh v Coffey, must a person who brings a claim for pure mental harm be present at the scene of an accident?

Answer 13

No, but they must observe the aftermath of the accident which extends to the hospital setting

Question 14

True or False: Under s73 of the wrongs act 1958 (vic) a P is not entitled to revoer damages for pure mental harm unless the P witness, at the scene, the victim being killed, injured or put in danger; or the P is or was in a close r/ship with the victim

Answer 14

True

Question 15

True or False: The decision of the house of loards in Hedley Byrne & co v Heller 1964 establishes conclusively that in certain circumstances a DoC may arise in relation to a negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss

Answer 15

True

Question 16

In cases of pure mental harm does the reasonable person need to forsee the particular psychiatric illness suffered?

Answer 16

No, but they must foresee some recognised psychiatric illness

Question 17

In what circumstances will a DoC arise in relation to a negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss?

Answer 17

Where the harm was foreseeable, where the D assumed responsibility for making the statement knowing that the information or advice would be relied upon,
where the P relied upon the misstatement and where the P is part of an identifiable group that the D should have foreseen would rely on the information imparted.