ascertain whether the D fell below standard of care
general principles
s48(1) wrongs act
1) a person is not negligent in failing to take precaustions against a risk of harm unless-
a) tge risk was forseeable(that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known) and
D could reasonably forsee the general risk
of harm; wyong shire council v shirt
forseeable if not 'far fetched or fanciful'
b) the risk was not insignificant and
s48(3) wrongs act
a) Insignificant risks include, but are not
limited to, risks that are far-fetched or
fanciful and
b) risks that are not insignificant are
all risks other than insignificant risks
and include but are not limited to,
significant risks
c) in the circumstances a reasonable person in the person's position would have taken those precautions
D is not required to gaurentee that P will not be harmed
because of the occurrence of the foreseeable risk, but
must take reasonable care to ensure that such harm
does not occur; derrick v cheung
calculus of negligence s 48(2) wrongs act
in determining whether a reasonable person
would have taken precaustions against a risk
of harm, the court is to consider the following
(amongst other relevant things)
a) probability the harm would occur if care were not taken
the only precautions
that could be takent to
avert injury are
prohibitevly expensive
or inconvinent; bolton v
stone and romeo
b) the likely seriousness of the harm
court may require stingent mesures
to ensure does not happen;
caledonian collieriers ltd v speirs
special precautionary mesures where D
knows P may suffer greater damage than
ordinary person; paris v stepney borough
council
c) the burden of taking precaustions
to avoid the risk of harm
s 55 wrongs act
1) a person is not liable in negligence for
harm suffered by another person as a
result of the materialisation of an inherent
risk
2) An inherent risk is a risk of something
occuring that cannot be avoided by the
excersize of reasonable care
s49(a) WA the burden of taking
precautions to avoid a risk of harm
includes the burden of taking
precautions to avoid a risk of harm
for which the person may be
responsible for
s49(c) WA the subsequent
taking of action that would (had
the action been taken earlier)
have avoided a risk of harm does
not in itself give rise to or affect
liability in respect of the risk and
does not of itself constitute an
admission of liability in
connection with the risk
d) the social utility of the activity
that creates the risk of harm
E v Australian red cross
time for assessing risk
date of accident and
knowledge that existed at
that date of trial roe v
minister of health
s58 WA in a case where D has
held theirselves out as
possessing a particular skill, the
standard to be applied is to be
determined by reference to the
relebant circumstances as at
the date of the alleged
negligence and not a later date
policy consideration; personal automity and individual responsibility
P must carry a level of responsibility for their own safety; mulligan
v coffs harbour city council
relevance of the obvious nature of risk
not reasonable for D to warn or prevent risk that should be
obvious and well known to the P; romeo v conservation
commission of the northern territory
ilegallity/ intoxication of P
a) whether P was acting illegally at the time of his or her death or injury or
b) whether the plaintiff was intoxicated by alchol or drugs that were consumed voluntarily, as well as the
level of intoxication s 14G WA