WebPages 62 ; Ratings 100% (10) 10 out of 10 people found this document helpful; This preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 62 pages.preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 62 pages. WebHackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614. Unforeseeable duty of care. 1. Nervous shock cases (No occupier’s liability) Bourhil l v Y oung (1942) AC 92. P olicy consideration, and it m ight open floodgates to litigation as other people would . come forward and claim becaus e they felt that it’s possible, thus having unlim ited .
Hackshaw V. Shaw Case Of Tort Liability Negligence
Web§ Or defence of one’s property: Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614 o Disproportionate force is not necessarily unreasonable. Proportionality is a factor to be taken into account in determining whether the defendant’s action were reasonable: Zecevic v DPP (Vic) NEGLIGENCE – Duty of Care Duty of care -Approaching the scenario: WebSep 28, 2015 · HACKSHAW V. SHAW [1984] 155 CLR 614. High Court of Australia – 11 December 1984. FACTS. Shaw was the owner of a farm where petrol was stored for … dahlia venti light rose
Lecture 3 Torts-Negligence PDF Negligence Causation (Law)
Web!!!Case: Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614 (+) The farmer owed the trespasser a duty of care because it was foreseeable that there may be a passenger in the car and that firing the rifle at night could cause injury.!!!Case: Bryant v Fawdon [1993] WASC 38 (-) WebTrespasser: (Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614) & (Bryant v Fawdon [1993] WASC 38) Breach of Duty. Objective test (Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510) Probability of harm (Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850) Seriousness of the harm: (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367) WebMarch v E & MH Stramare Pyt Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506: The but-for test cannot be an exclusive test for causation, and must be supplemented by a 'common sense' approach … dahlia venti royal purple