3448156
Description
Flashcards by Soul Maher, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Soul Maher
over 8 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Elements of Donoghue v Stevenson | 1. Duty of Care - Forseeable and directly effected 2. Breach of Duty of care 3. Damage 4. Damage caused by breach 5. No contributory negligence from Plaintiff |
| Definition of Warning: | - Disclosure of the nature of the defect - Express warning - Suggests inspection - Place a time limit on the defect |
| Andrew v Hopkins | Second hand car. "Stake my life on it" Fault in the drive shaft. |
| Brown v Cotteril | Tombstone, injurs a passerby. The plaintiff was forseeable due to the nature of cemetries. |
| (Mrs) Marx v Attorney General | (3rd party) Her husband was injured and changed impacting her negatively. Not liable as she was not directly effected or forseeable. |
| Bourhill v Young | Lady heard a motorcycle accident and had a misscarriage. Not liable. |
| Jull v Wilson | Forklift - warning by repairer which expressed an expectation that they would check the weld |
| Yatchetti v Duff | Uncooked sasuages - "assumption that common practice would be carried out" |
| Voli v Inglewood shire | Stage was set up following architecht's plans. Stage collapsed. Found liable even though the plans were accepted by council. **If tou have expertise you can't pass the buck** |
| Invercargill City Council v Hamilton | Leaky house - Council held to have a duty of care to house purchasers to ensure house complies with codes. |
| Limitations Act 1950 | Section 4 a claim can not be brought "6 years from the date upon which the cause of the action accured." |
| Building Act 2004 | Section 92 (2) Civil Proceedings are limited to 10 years after the act of omission. |
| Issues in a Donoghue v Stevens opinion | 1. Did x owe y a Duty of Care not to z? 2. Was there a breach of the DOC? 3. Limitations (See Next) 4. Was there Warning? 5. Timing (See Previous) 6 Joint Torteasor 7. What damages are recoverable? |
| Limitations of liability | - Reasonaable possibility for intermediate inspection. - Warning - Timing - Joint Torteasor |
| Bowen v Paramount Builders | Richmond P: cause of action accures when "actual structural damage is more than minimal" Cook J: it accures every time there is "new and distinct damage" |
| Joint Torteasor | one of two or more persons who may be joined as defendants in the same single cause of action to recover damage for a tort. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.