...deliberated and discussed. Finally the paper is summed up with a general solution which can help law courts to decide on the matters in question without getting involved in the technicalities which currently persist. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION In order to understand the role of causation and remoteness in tortious liability it is imperative that we have a clear idea of what the term causation and remoteness imply in tort law. Very simply put - In a tort case, it is essential to discover whether there was some act or omission by the defendant which caused damage to the plaintiff. Thus causation aims at connecting an act committed by an individual to the consequences of the same act faced by another individual. Once a connection gets established, that is, once it is proven that an act caused a specific harm or injury, remoteness comes into the picture. Remoteness can therefore be defined as an extension of causation in determining whether the defendant is at...
Words: 5021 - Pages: 21
...What is negligence? Negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care which causes loss or injury to the person to whom the duty is owned. There are three elements of an actionable negligence: 1. duty of care 2. breach of duty 3. damages resulting from that breach 1) Duty of care • Relational Proximity (neighbour = someone affected by your act) • Forseeability (any considerations that ought to reduce the scope of duty of care) • Whether is all circumstances it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. Duty of Care? 1. Was the defendant careless/negligent? 2. Did he act like a reasonable man? 3. What did he omit to do? • Where D should have interceded for P protection e.g. motorist's duty to control passengers so that they do not cause injury to other road users. • Where D omitted to observe the rules of the road 4. Does a duty of care exist? • We have to ask ourselves is a duty of care owed to the person who we can reasonably foresee will be injured by our acts or omissions. • Duty of Care not only applies to acts and omissions but also to words/statements • A duty could arise that due to a careless statement it leads to economic loss. • e.g a special relationship of trust and advice in a professional capacity • Plantiff (Prosecutor....claim damages) • Defendant (person who caused the damage or acted...
Words: 793 - Pages: 4
...Clumsy can sue Tesko under law of tort. Tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidentally which unfairly causes someone to suffer loss or harm from another party and this is lead to action to civil court. There are two ways to occur in civil liability which is either a breach of contract or a tort having been committed. Liability of tort is not undertaken voluntarily and its’ applied by the courts on the basis that certain types of conduct ensure the imposition of tortious liability. Examples of tort situations are negligence, nuisance, trespassing, defamation, occupiers’ and vicarious liabilities. In Soo’s case, emphasis is given to law of negligence. In Soo’s case, she can claim under the negligence from Tesko. Negligence always required some form of careless conduct. Based on the fact given there is an extent of careless conduct by Tesko. In order for Soo to successfully sue Tesko for her claim there are three elements that need to be established. The first element is there must be an existence of duty by Tesko, breach of that duty and the causation and that the damages are not too remote. Based on the first element, the fact related which is Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 House of Lord [1]. This case was happens on 26th August 1928, Donoghue and her friend went to a café in Glasgow and her friend brought a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The ginger beer was in a brown and opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen. Donoghue...
Words: 2479 - Pages: 10
...Unit 24 - Assignment 1 Introduction For this assignment I will be describing the elements of a crime which are Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Mens Rea is Latin for 'guilty mind' and it is the mental thinking behind the crime which has been committed, it refers to the intentions of the person who committed the crime. For example, when someone commits theft their intention is to permanently deprive the owner/s of the object. Actus Reus is Latin for 'guilty act' and it can either be an act or a failure to act. For example, when someone commits theft they must've physically taken something. The three C's of Actus Reus must be taken into account when investigating a crime they are: * Conduct - this is the act of damaging or destroying something/someone. * Circumstances - this is the fact that the property must belong to another. * Consent - this is the resulting damage or destruction of the act. Causation Causation, also known as result crimes is when a consequence has come about as a result of the Actus Reus being committed. When establishing causation the first step is to ask 'was the defendant's act a cause in the fact of the specified consequence?' This can be answered by asking 'But for what the defendant did would the consequence have occurred?' If the answer is YES then the result wouldn't have occurred if not for the defendant's acts and, therefore causation is established. A case which shows the chain of causation is the case of R v White (1910) the defendant...
Words: 3175 - Pages: 13
...Unit 24 - Assignment 1 Introduction For this assignment I will be describing the elements of a crime which are Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Mens Rea is Latin for 'guilty mind' and it is the mental thinking behind the crime which has been committed, it refers to the intentions of the person who committed the crime. For example, when someone commits theft their intention is to permanently deprive the owner/s of the object. Actus Reus is Latin for 'guilty act' and it can either be an act or a failure to act. For example, when someone commits theft they must've physically taken something. The three C's of Actus Reus must be taken into account when investigating a crime they are: • Conduct - this is the act of damaging or destroying something/someone. • Circumstances - this is the fact that the property must belong to another. • Consent - this is the resulting damage or destruction of the act. Causation Causation, also known as result crimes is when a consequence has come about as a result of the Actus Reus being committed. When establishing causation the first step is to ask 'was the defendant's act a cause in the fact of the specified consequence?' This can be answered by asking 'But for what the defendant did would the consequence have occurred?' If the answer is YES then the result wouldn't have occurred if not for the defendant's acts and, therefore causation is established. A case which shows the chain of causation is the case of R v White (1910) the defendant put cyanide...
Words: 3175 - Pages: 13
...edition of Bevan on Negligence stated that negligence is “it has to deal……with duties as they appear when the normal standard of performance is not attained…considering defaults in conduct, and only in the second place with the adequate discharge of obligations”. 1. DUTY OF CARE Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, the approach to determine a duty of care is to identify the “salient features” that combine to constitute a sufficiently close relationship to give rise to a duty of care. Reasonably foreseeable: - It is reasonably foreseeable that any carelessness on the part of the defendant could harm the plaintiff. Did the defendant’s act impart harm “that you could reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”? (Donoghue v Stevenson). Incremental Approach: 1. type of relationship between the parties; a) the vulnerability of the plantiff, b) degree of control of defendant, c) special knowledge of the defendant of the plaintiff’s situation. 2. the type of loss or injury (physical, psychiatric, economic) 3. policy and; 4. physical, casual and circumstantial proximity may still be used (Kirby, Modbury triangle shopping centre pty ltd v Anzil) “proximity is the best notion yet devised by the law to delineate the relationship of negibour” Proximity test involves a notion of nearness in the relationship between the parties. as a principle stated in Rylands v Flectcher, “identifying the categories of case…rather than a test for determining whether the circumstances...
Words: 11108 - Pages: 45
...the Second Degree 14 Actus Reus 14 Mens Rea 16 Doctrine of Common Purpose 16 ATTEMPT 20 Mens Rea (Heavily dependent on MR). 21 Actus Reus 21 LARCENY 24 Actus Reus 24 a. Taking & Carrying Away 24 b. Property Capable of Being Stolen 24 c. Property in Someone Else’s Possession 25 Abandoned by owner 26 d. Without Consent of the Person in Possession 26 Mens Rea 28 1. Intent to Deprive Permanently 28 2. Without a Claim of Right Made in Good Faith (bona fide) 30 3. Fraudulently 31 Temporal Coincidence 33 Larceny by Finding 33 Larceny by Trick 34 Larceny as a Bailee 38 ASSAULT 41 Degree of Injury 41 Common Assault 42 a. Psychic Assault 42 b. Battery 44 Mens Rea 47 Intentional Assault 47 Reckless Assault 47 Negligence 48 Aggravated Assault 48 a. Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) (section 59) 49 b. Reckless GBH or Wounding (section 35) 50 c. Maliciously Wounding/GBH with Intention to Inflict GBH (section 33) 51 SEXUAL ASSAULT 54 Actus Reus 54 a. Sexual Intercourse 54 b. Absence of Consent 55 Common law Rules 57 o Doctrine of marital immunity abolished at common law (L 1991) and under statute (s61T(a) NSW) 57 Mens Rea 57 Intention 57 Mistaken Belief in Consent 57 Recklessness 58 DEFENCES 60 Insanity 60 Elements 60 Automatism 61 Sane and Insane Automatism 61 Intoxication 62 Burden of Proof 62 Self-induced v Involuntary Intoxication 62 Actus Reus 62 Mens Rea 62 ...
Words: 31227 - Pages: 125
