NEGIGENCE
In the 1928 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 of a particular case bring it within such a category, either established or developing”.
Sullivan v Moody applied tradtional common law approach “…although not determinative, is instructive”.
Where duty of care will fail
Policy(whether a duty of care exists. Public policy does not allow the following area, 1. legal practitioners in the performance of court work