Negligence Case
Issue: Is Michelle performed carelessly that brought on mishap and consequence of Rebecca injured?
The elements of a negligence
The plaintiff must establish these steps in damages for negligence:
1. Duty of Care:
• Take care to avoid acts or omissions is the one reasonable foreseeable- meaning that a reasonable person appreciates the risks and takes a practical steps to minimize likely adverse consequences see Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1933] and Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
• The loss or pain suffered by the plaintiff
• The nature of relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff
• The plaintiff’s vulnerability- An outraged gathering is helpless if he was not capable of figuring out how to shield himself from the reckless exhibition
• See Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9
2. The Breach of Duty:
• A reasonable person has a duty of care toward the other person and would have taken precautions against a risk of harm in any circumstances. i.e., driver owes passengers a duty of care.
• The defendant has fail to meet the standard of care and breach the duty of care to their neighbor if the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, not significant , and failed to take reasonable precautions: see s32 of Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA)
• See the case of Romeo V Conservation …show more content…
As law states that a drunk driver of a stolen vehicle does not owe duty of care, only if car was stolen. In the nutshell, Michelle still owe duty of care to Rebecca, even though Rebecca failed to take care of herself. According to the law, it states that, all road users owes duty of care to passengers, pedestrians, and drivers, see March v Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] 171 CLR 506 (High Court), however, a drunk driver of a stolen vehicle don’t owed obligation to the travelers who were drunk as well, Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9 para
The elements of a negligence
The plaintiff must establish these steps in damages for negligence:
1. Duty of Care:
• Take care to avoid acts or omissions is the one reasonable foreseeable- meaning that a reasonable person appreciates the risks and takes a practical steps to minimize likely adverse consequences see Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1933] and Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
• The loss or pain suffered by the plaintiff
• The nature of relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff
• The plaintiff’s vulnerability- An outraged gathering is helpless if he was not capable of figuring out how to shield himself from the reckless exhibition
• See Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9
2. The Breach of Duty:
• A reasonable person has a duty of care toward the other person and would have taken precautions against a risk of harm in any circumstances. i.e., driver owes passengers a duty of care.
• The defendant has fail to meet the standard of care and breach the duty of care to their neighbor if the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, not significant , and failed to take reasonable precautions: see s32 of Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA)
• See the case of Romeo V Conservation …show more content…
As law states that a drunk driver of a stolen vehicle does not owe duty of care, only if car was stolen. In the nutshell, Michelle still owe duty of care to Rebecca, even though Rebecca failed to take care of herself. According to the law, it states that, all road users owes duty of care to passengers, pedestrians, and drivers, see March v Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] 171 CLR 506 (High Court), however, a drunk driver of a stolen vehicle don’t owed obligation to the travelers who were drunk as well, Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9 para