Tuvalu Island Courts Bench Book - Federal Court of Australia
Tuvalu Island Courts Bench Book - Federal Court of Australia
Tuvalu Island Courts Bench Book - Federal Court of Australia
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
7.1 The Tort <strong>of</strong> Negligence<br />
The most common type <strong>of</strong> tort is negligence. As a tort, negligence is defined as the defendant’s<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> their legal duty to take care <strong>of</strong> the plaintiff, either by:<br />
• doing an action which causes harm to the plaintiff; or<br />
• failing do something which prevents harm to the plaintiff.<br />
In order to determine whether the tort <strong>of</strong> negligence exists, three elements must be presen:.<br />
1 The first element is that the defendant must owe the plaintiff a duty <strong>of</strong> care.<br />
2 The second element is that the defendant must breach the duty <strong>of</strong> care that he or she owes<br />
to the plaintiff.<br />
3 The third element is that the plaintiff must suffer damage or harm as a result <strong>of</strong> the<br />
defendant’s breach <strong>of</strong> the duty <strong>of</strong> care.<br />
1. Duty <strong>of</strong> care<br />
The test for whether there is a duty <strong>of</strong> care is whether a person can reasonably foresee that his or<br />
her behaviour will cause damage or harm to someone.<br />
If the answer is yes, then a duty <strong>of</strong> care exists towards that person or other people who fall in the<br />
same category as that person.<br />
Example:<br />
A driver <strong>of</strong> a vehicle would have a duty to take care for other vehicle users, people walking on<br />
the road, and children playing near the road not to hit those people with their vehicle.<br />
2. Breach <strong>of</strong> the duty <strong>of</strong> care<br />
In determining whether there has been a breach <strong>of</strong> a duty <strong>of</strong> care, you must ask:<br />
• “Would a reasonable person recognise that their actions (or failure to act) may cause<br />
some damage and therefore take care to avoid doing (or not doing) it?”; and<br />
• “Did the defendant fail to take the precautions a reasonable person would in the<br />
circumstances?”<br />
It is important to remember that:<br />
• the greater the potential harm to someone, the greater the precautions that are required;<br />
and<br />
• it is not necessary that a reasonable person would foresee the exact type or the<br />
seriousness <strong>of</strong> the damage. It is enough that they recognise the risk that some damage<br />
may occur as a result <strong>of</strong> their actions (or failure to act).<br />
<strong>Tuvalu</strong> <strong>Island</strong> <strong><strong>Court</strong>s</strong> <strong>Bench</strong> <strong>Book</strong> June 2004