[Type&text]& [Type&text]& [Type&text]&

& 1&

MICHAEL(KRIEWALDT(MLL(218!Torts&Law&Exam&Notes!

[Type&text]& [Type&text]& [Type&text]&

& 2&

Table&of&Contents&Vicarious&Liability&& & & & & & & & & pg.3&Duty&of&Care&& & & & & & & & & & pg.5&Breach&& & & & & & & & & & pg.10&Causation& & & & & & & & & & pg.19&Remoteness& & & & & & & & & & pg.26& &Special&Duty&Mere&Omissions& & & & & & & pg.29& &Mental&harm&& & & & & & & & & & pg.33&Defenses& & & & & & & & & & pg.38& &Nuisance& & & & & & & & & & pg.45& &Breach&of&Statutory&Duty& & & & & & & & pg.51& && & &

&

[Type&text]& [Type&text]& [Type&text]&

& 3&

Vicarious Liability Vicarious&liability&(VL)&of&an&employer&Vicarious!liability!is!where!an!employer!may!be!liable!tortuous!acts!by!an!employee!during!the!course!of!the!employment!Difference!between!independent!contractors!and!employees!Employer!is!only!liable!for!employees,!not!independent!contractors!!

!NOTE:!employee!remains!personally!liable!(employer!and!employee’s!liability!is!‘joint!and!several’)!o can!sue!both!employee!and!employers!!&&Two&prerequisites:&1. Indicia!of!a!relationship!of!employer!and!employee!!a. Was!the!tortfeasor!(T)!operating!his!or!her!own!business?!!If!yes,!not!an!employee!but!a!

contractor.!If!independent!contractor!wont!work.!!b. Stevens!v!Brodribb!Sawmilling!Co!Pty!Ltd!c. Hollis!v!Vabu!(Austlii)!d. Sweeney!v!Boylan!Nominees!Pty!Ltd!(supplement)!i. Integration!within!the!organisation!ii. Was!T!representing!the!organisation?!iii. Were!T’s!activities!central!to!the!organisation’s!work,!or!merely!incidental?!iv. D’s!right!to!control!the!manner!of!the!work!v. How!and!when!the!work!is!to!be!done!!Number!of!factors!to!be!used!to!differentiate!between!an!employer!and!employee!Look!at!the!degree!of!control!the!defendant!is!authorized!to!exercise!over!the!tortfeasor,!greater!

the!control!more!likely!an!employee!Degree!of!involvement!and!intergration!the!tortfeasor!has!with!the!business!How!is!the!tortfeasor!paid?!Salary,!more!likely!an!employee!Whether!the!tortfeasor!is!responsible!for!maintaining!and!providing!their!own!equipment!Whether!the!work!is!provided!for!a!fixed!period!of!time!or!ongoing!Income!tax,!how!the!tortfeasor!is!taxed,!whether!the!tax!is!deducted!from!payment!or!separately!!Whether!the!tortfeasor!is!required!to!wear!a!uniform!Is!the!tortfeasor!free!to!work!for!other?!Is!able!to!take!on!numerous!jobs?!Provision!of!skilled/specialised!labour!T’s!freedom!to!refuse!work!Mode!of!remuneration!Intention!of!the!parties!Ability!of!T!to!delegate!the!work!Do!the!tasks!they!are!performing!go!to!the!very!nature!and!core!of!the!business,!contractors!usually!

carry!out!their!own!business!and!tasks!

[Type&text]& [Type&text]& [Type&text]&

& 4&

See!also!Elazac&Pty&Ltd&v&Shirreff&[2011]!VSCA!405!!

2. The!employee’s!actions!were!in!the!course!of!employment!or!reasonably!incidental!thereto.!a. Need!to!distinguish!between!a!authorized!wrongful!act!in!the!course!of!employment,!or!

an!unauthorised!wrongful!action!not!in!the!course!of!employment!b. No!clear!test!of!what!is!an!‘unauthorised!act’:!2!main!formulations!c. 1.!was!the!TF’s!tort!‘so!closely!connected!with!the!employment’!that!imposition!of!VL!is!

justified?!ie!created/increased!risk!of!commission!of!tort:!Gleeson!CJ!and!Kirby!J!in!NSW&v&Lepore!

d. 2.!was!TF!acting!in!intended/ostensible!pursuit!of!employer’s!business?!Gummow!and!Hayne!JJ!in!NSW&v&Lepore!

e. No!absolute!rule,!but!generally:!f. Negligent!acts!more!likely!to!fall!within!scope!of!employment!than!intentional!acts:!

Century&Insurance,!Hollis&v&Vabu&versus!Deatons&v&Flew,!Fontin&v&Katapodis,&Blake&v&JR&Perry&Nominees!

g. where!TF!acting!for!a!‘private!motive’,!then!unconnected!with!employment:!Fontin&v&Katapodis,&Blake&v&JR&Perry!

h. !i. Employer!liable!where!employee!performs!an!authorised!act!in!an!unauthorised!way!j. Canterbury&Bankstown&Rugby&League&Football&Club&v&Rogers&! &i. Budgen!was!authorized!to!tackle!a!player!in!the!opposing!team&ii. Not!authorized!in!that!manner,!but!still!authorised&iii. But!employer!not!liable!for!exemplary!damages!unless!itself!acted!in!conscious!

and!contumelious!disregard!of!P’s!rights&k. Employer!not!liable!where!employee!performs!an!unauthorised!act:!!‘on&a&frolic&of&

his/her&own’&l. Was!employee!acting!in!intended!or!ostensible!pursuit!of!employer’s!business?&i. See!Gummow!and!Hayne!JJ!in!Lepore?&m. Negligent!vs.!intentional!tortuous!acts&i. Century!Insurance!v!Northern!Island!Road!Transport!Board&ii. Hayward!v!Georges&iii. Hollis!v!Vabu&

VS!i. Deatons!Pty!Ltd!v!Flew!(Austlii):!barmaid!threw!a!glass!in!retaliation!to!an!insult,!

caused!injury.!Barmaid!tried!to!put!forward!selfadefence,!dismissed,!as!the!intention!was!malicious.!Then!said!she!was!acting!within!authority!as!she!was!keeping!the!peace!of!the!establishment,!dismissed,!courts!said!it!was!not!necessary!to!protect!anyone!or!anything.!Act!that!was!motivated!by!revenge,!personal!grievance!falls!outside!the!scope!of!employment!

ii. Keppel!Bus!Co!v!Sa’ad!bin!Ahmad!iii. Fontin!v!Katapodis!(Austlii)!iv. Cf!Canterbury!Bankstown!Rugby!League!Football!Club!v!Rogers!!!!VL&for&sexual&abuse&State&of&NSW&v&Lepore&Majority!(Kirby!J!dissenting):!!educational!authorities!not!liable!for!sexual!abuse!by!teachers!See!in!particular!Gummow!and!Hayne!JJ!a!conduct!must!be!in!intended!or!ostensible!pursuit!of!

employer’s!business!

[Type&text]& [Type&text]& [Type&text]&

& 5&

o Compare!sexual!abuse!with!excessive!discipline!Kirby!J:!potential!liability!a!particularly!where!small,!remote,!school!!VL&for&exemplary&damages&Currently!unclear!whether!employer!is!vicariously!liable!for!exemplary!damages!awarded!against!an!

employee!o Canterbury!Bankstown!Rugby!League!Football!Club!v!Rogers!!!

VS!o Zorom!Enterprises!Pty!Ltd!v!Zabow![2007]!NSWCA!106!Left!undecided!in!New!South!Wales!v!Ibbett

Topic 5: Introduction to the Law of Negligence Duty of Care

Damage

• P must have suffered a recognisable form of damage: a Personal injury a Property damage a Economic loss a Psychiatric condition

• Transient emotions (eg stress, anxiety, fear) or inconvenience are not compensable forms of damage. • This is because they come and go – feel it for a bit/ sustained period of time but it will pass

Elements of negligence

1. Duty of care • D must owe a duty to P not to create the risk of injury that occurred. 2. Breach of duty • D must have fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person engaged in that activity. 3. Causation • The breach must have caused the injury to P • Have to ‘click’ together, connection 4. Remoteness of damage • The injury caused by the breach must have been reasonably foreseeable. • D is not liable if something happened which he could not reasonably foresee happening ! D must plead and establish any available defence, such as contributory negligence or voluntary assumption of

risk. • Voluntary assumption of risk; example sport

Duty of Care

• Legislation: Wrongs Act 1958(vic) reforms made in late 2003 governed under the lpp report, particularly actions for negligence.

• 3 main parts added found under part 10, 11 and 12 " set out the general principle needed for negligence (10), relevant types of psychiatric injury (11), relevant to claims against public authority (12)

Modern requirements of a duty of care

1. Reasonable foreseeability of harm Jaensch v Coffey (HCA, 1984) DO THIS FIRST 2. In novel cases, a ‘special relationship’ between the parties. This entails an evaluation of the ‘salient features’ of

the relationship; ie evaluation of factors for and against imposition of liability • Sullivan v Moody

A duty of care will be denied where policy factors support an immunity from liability Established categories of duty of care