LAW OF TORTS

LAW OF TORTSLAW OF TORTS

LECTURE 4LECTURE 4

Negligence – Duty of CareNegligence – Duty of Care

Clary CastrissionClary Castrission

[email protected]@40k.com.au

How will we cover How will we cover negligence?negligence?

• Today: Duty of Care at common lawToday: Duty of Care at common law• Next week: Civil Liability Act and Duty Next week: Civil Liability Act and Duty

of Careof Care• 17 December: More CLA and Breach of 17 December: More CLA and Breach of

DutyDuty• 7 January: Damage and Particular 7 January: Damage and Particular

Duty AreasDuty Areas• 14 January: More Particular Duty 14 January: More Particular Duty

AreasAreas

Roadmap for todayRoadmap for today

• SnailsSnails• Overview of negligenceOverview of negligence• Arriving at a Duty of CareArriving at a Duty of Care• CategoriesCategories• The harder ones:The harder ones:

– Proximity and Reasonable Foreseeability v Proximity and Reasonable Foreseeability v IncrementalismIncrementalism

• Some interesting applicationsSome interesting applications– Unborn children and the wrongful life casesUnborn children and the wrongful life cases

• Legislative reformLegislative reform

What is Negligence?What is Negligence?

• It is the neglect of a legal dutyIt is the neglect of a legal duty

•Negligence v carelessnessNegligence v carelessness•““The law takes no cognisance of negligence in the The law takes no cognisance of negligence in the

abstract. It concerns itself with carelessness only abstract. It concerns itself with carelessness only where there is a duty to take care and where where there is a duty to take care and where failure in that duty has caused damage.” (Lord failure in that duty has caused damage.” (Lord MacMillan in MacMillan in D v S)D v S)

•Tame v NSW Tame v NSW (2002) 211 CLR 317(2002) 211 CLR 317

Negligence: The ElementsNegligence: The Elements

Duty of care

Breach

Damage

Negligence

Negligence: The Early Negligence: The Early CasesCases

• HeavenHeaven v. v. Pender (1883)Pender (1883)• (Defective equipment supplied to plaintiff painter)(Defective equipment supplied to plaintiff painter)

• The dicta of Brett MR:The dicta of Brett MR:• whenever one person is by circumstances whenever one person is by circumstances

placed in such a position with regard to placed in such a position with regard to another, that every one of ordinary sense who another, that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognise that if he did did think would at once recognise that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger or injury to the person or would cause danger or injury to the person or property of the other (person) a duty arises to property of the other (person) a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger.danger.

Donoghue v. Stevenson Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562[1932] AC 562

• FactsFacts• Understanding the Understanding the

relationshipsrelationships

Donoghue v Stevenson Donoghue v Stevenson (cont)(cont)

• Dicta of Lord AtkinDicta of Lord Atkin• The rule that you are to love your neighbour The rule that you are to love your neighbour

becomes in law, you must not injure your becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour, and the lawyer’s question, who is neighbour, and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are closely and directly to be persons who are closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in mind to the acts or omissions have them in mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question (at 599)which are called into question (at 599)

The Manufacturer’s DutyThe Manufacturer’s Duty

• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)(1936)• The application of the rule in The application of the rule in D v SD v S

•a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of that the absence of reasonable care reasonable care in the in the preparation or putting up of the products will preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer’s life or result in an injury to the consumer’s life or property, property, owes a dutyowes a duty to the consumer to the consumer to take to take that reasonable carethat reasonable care

• Baar v Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority Baar v Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 472(1970) 92 WN (NSW) 472

What did Lord Atkin What did Lord Atkin mean?mean?

• ““What Lord Atkin did was use his What Lord Atkin did was use his general conception to open up a general conception to open up a category of cases giving rise to a category of cases giving rise to a special duty… [The process] may be special duty… [The process] may be described either as the widening of an described either as the widening of an old category or as the creation of a old category or as the creation of a new and similar one. The general new and similar one. The general conception can be used to produce conception can be used to produce other categories in the same way.”other categories in the same way.”– Lord Devlin in Lord Devlin in Hedley Byrne & Co Hedley Byrne & Co

Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] [1964] AC 465AC 465 (at 524(at 524))

Established CategoriesEstablished Categories

• Type of HarmType of Harm• Type of DefendantType of Defendant• Type of PlaintiffType of Plaintiff• Manufacturer to consumerManufacturer to consumer• Makers/repairers to users of chattelsMakers/repairers to users of chattels• Teachers to pupilsTeachers to pupils• Occupiers of land to visitorsOccupiers of land to visitors• Skilled professionals to their clientsSkilled professionals to their clients• Highway workers to highway usersHighway workers to highway users

Checking InChecking In

• SnailsSnails• Overview of negligenceOverview of negligence• Arriving at a Duty of CareArriving at a Duty of Care• CategoriesCategories

__________________

• The harder ones:The harder ones:– Proximity and Reasonable Foreseeability v Proximity and Reasonable Foreseeability v

IncrementalismIncrementalism

• Some interesting applicationsSome interesting applications– Unborn children and the wrongful life casesUnborn children and the wrongful life cases– Legislative reformLegislative reform

Duty of Care in GeneralDuty of Care in General

• Where there is physical loss or injury Where there is physical loss or injury (or an established category), duty is (or an established category), duty is relatively easy to identify.relatively easy to identify.

– Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330

• Where nature of harm is more difficult Where nature of harm is more difficult to identify or quantify, it gets to identify or quantify, it gets tougher.tougher.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE DUTY DOES WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE DUTY DOES NOT FIT AN ALREADY EXISTING NOT FIT AN ALREADY EXISTING

CATEGORY? CATEGORY?

• What is needed is “a conceptual framework that will promote predictability and continutie and at the same time facilitate change when it is needed.” (McHugh J in Perre v Apand (1999))

• Principle v Category• Principle: Proximity- Based Tests• Anns 2-Stage Test• Caparo 3-Stage Test

• Category: Incrementalism• There is still “much disorder and

confusion”- Kirby J Perre v Apand

The The Anns Anns 2-Stage Test: 2-Stage Test: The UK WayThe UK Way

• Anns v Merton London Borough Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728Council [1978] AC 728

• 2-Stage Test (Wilberforce):2-Stage Test (Wilberforce):– It requires first a It requires first a ‘sufficient ‘sufficient

relationship of proximity based relationship of proximity based upon foreseeability’upon foreseeability’;;

– and secondly considerations of and secondly considerations of reasons why there should reasons why there should notnot be a be a duty of care.duty of care.

Australia Rejects AnnsAustralia Rejects Anns

• Jaensch v. CoffeyJaensch v. Coffey (1984) per Deane J. (1984) per Deane J. p587-8p587-8

• A duty situation could arise from the A duty situation could arise from the following combination of factorsfollowing combination of factors– A A reasonable foreseeability reasonable foreseeability of real risk of injury of real risk of injury

to P either as an identifiable individual or a to P either as an identifiable individual or a member of a class of persons, andmember of a class of persons, and

– The existence of The existence of proximityproximity between the parties between the parties with respect to the act or omissionwith respect to the act or omission

– Absence of any rule that precludes such a duty Absence of any rule that precludes such a duty

The 3-Stage Caparo TestThe 3-Stage Caparo Test

• Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605[1990] 2 AC 605

– Was damage to P reasonably foreseeableWas damage to P reasonably foreseeable– Was relationship between P and D sufficiently Was relationship between P and D sufficiently

proximate, and if soproximate, and if so– Would it be fair, just and reasonable to apply Would it be fair, just and reasonable to apply

DOCDOC

What is Reasonable What is Reasonable Foreseeability?Foreseeability?

• Question of identity of the plaintiff: Question of identity of the plaintiff:

• Question of lawQuestion of law• Sullivan v MoodySullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 (2001) 207 CLR 562

– ““The fact that it is foreseeable… that a careless act on the part of one person may cause harm to another does not mean the first is subject to a legal liability…”The fact that it is foreseeable… that a careless act on the part of one person may cause harm to another does not mean the first is subject to a legal liability…”Is the P reasonably foreseeable (as person or member of a class of people) likely to be affected by D’s actions?

Reasonable Reasonable Foreseeability: Case LawForeseeability: Case Law

•Some illustrationsSome illustrations–Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. (1928Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. (1928– Chapman v. HearseChapman v. Hearse (1961) (1961)

Reasonable Foreseeability: Reasonable Foreseeability: Established Category Of Duty Established Category Of Duty

of Careof Care

• Koehler -v- Cerebos (Australia) Koehler -v- Cerebos (Australia) Limited [2005] HCA 15Limited [2005] HCA 15

McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ (majority): (majority):

““The central inquiry remains whether, in all The central inquiry remains whether, in all the circumstances, the risk of a plaintiff … the circumstances, the risk of a plaintiff … sustaining a recognisable psychiatric illness sustaining a recognisable psychiatric illness was reasonably foreseeable, in the sense that was reasonably foreseeable, in the sense that the risk was not far fetched or fancifulthe risk was not far fetched or fanciful”” [33] [33]

ProximityProximity

Jaensch v. CoffeyJaensch v. Coffey (1984) (1984)•(Proximity involves) notions of nearness (Proximity involves) notions of nearness or closeness and embraces or closeness and embraces physical physical proximity proximity (in the sense of space and time)(in the sense of space and time)…, …, circumstantial proximitycircumstantial proximity such as an such as an overriding relationship of employer and overriding relationship of employer and employee or of a professional man and employee or of a professional man and his client, and his client, and causal proximity causal proximity in the in the sense of the closeness or directness of sense of the closeness or directness of the relationship between the particular the relationship between the particular act or cause of action and the injury act or cause of action and the injury sustained.” sustained.” (per Deane at 584-585)(per Deane at 584-585)

The High Point of The High Point of ProximityProximity

• Bryan v Maloney Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609(1995) 182 CLR 609– ““A duty of care arises under the A duty of care arises under the

common law of this country only common law of this country only where there exists a relationship of where there exists a relationship of proximity between the parties with proximity between the parties with respect to both the relevant class of respect to both the relevant class of act or omission and the relevant act or omission and the relevant damage.”damage.” (at 543) (at 543)

The Main Features of The Main Features of ProximityProximity

PROXIMITY

Physical

Circumstantial

Causal

Degree of proximity

Evaluation of legal

and policy considerations of

what is fairand reasonable

Evaluation

Proximity CriticisedProximity Criticised

• The High Court has expressed The High Court has expressed reservations about the usefulness of reservations about the usefulness of the notion of proximity in recent timesthe notion of proximity in recent times– Sutherland SC v Heyman (1985)Sutherland SC v Heyman (1985)– Hill v Van ErpHill v Van Erp (1997) (1997)– Perre v Apand (1999)Perre v Apand (1999)– Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre

Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000)Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000)• Why was Anns checked?Why was Anns checked?

Proximity - CriticisedProximity - Criticised

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562•Facts Facts •Judgment Judgment

Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne & Callinan Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne & Callinan JJ:JJ:

[573] [573] ““…foreseeability of harm is not sufficient …foreseeability of harm is not sufficient to give rise to a duty of careto give rise to a duty of care””

[578] [578] ““The formula is not The formula is not ‘‘proximityproximity’’. . Notwithstanding the centrality of that concept, Notwithstanding the centrality of that concept, for more than a century … it gives little practical for more than a century … it gives little practical guidance in determining whether a duty of care guidance in determining whether a duty of care exists in cases that are not analogous to cases exists in cases that are not analogous to cases in which a duty has been establishedin which a duty has been established””

IncrementalismIncrementalism

Wrapping up the Wrapping up the approachesapproaches

The quest for the unifying principleThe quest for the unifying principle

- Anns 2-Stage Test- Anns 2-Stage Test

- Caparo- Caparo

Incremental Approach: A compromiseIncremental Approach: A compromise

- - Brodie v Singleton Shire Council Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 (2001) 206 CLR 512CLR 512

Checking InChecking In



--------------------------------------------



DUTY CATEGORIES: To DUTY CATEGORIES: To whom is duty owed?whom is duty owed?

• One owes a duty to those One owes a duty to those so closely and directly so closely and directly affectedaffected by his/her conduct that she ought reasonably by his/her conduct that she ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected to have them in contemplation as being so affected when undertaking the conduct in question.when undertaking the conduct in question.

• Examples: Examples: - Employer/Worker- Employer/Worker- Driver/Other Road Users- Driver/Other Road Users- Doctor/Patient- Doctor/Patient- - Consumers, users of products and structuresConsumers, users of products and structures

» Donoghue v StevensonDonoghue v Stevenson» VoliVoli v Inglewood v Inglewood Shire Council Shire Council » Bryan Bryan v v Maloney Maloney

– Users of premises etc.Users of premises etc.» Australian Safeway Stores v ZaluznaAustralian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna

Unborn ChildUnborn Child

• The unborn child:The unborn child:

– The duty is not simply to take reasonable care in the The duty is not simply to take reasonable care in the abstract but to take reasonable care not to injure a abstract but to take reasonable care not to injure a person whom it should reasonably be foreseen may be person whom it should reasonably be foreseen may be injured by the act or neglect if such care is not taken injured by the act or neglect if such care is not taken (Winneke CJ/ Pape J)(Winneke CJ/ Pape J)

– There can be no justification for distinguishing There can be no justification for distinguishing between the rights… of a newly born infant returning between the rights… of a newly born infant returning home with his /her mother from hospital in a bassinet home with his /her mother from hospital in a bassinet hidden from view on the back of a motor car being hidden from view on the back of a motor car being driven by his proud father and of a child driven by his proud father and of a child en ventre sa en ventre sa mere mere whose mother is being driven by her anxious whose mother is being driven by her anxious husband to the hospital on way to the labour ward to husband to the hospital on way to the labour ward to deliver such a child ( Per Gillard J in deliver such a child ( Per Gillard J in Watt v RamaWatt v Rama))

- Lynch v Lynch Lynch v Lynch (1991)(1991)- Watt v Rama [1972] VR 353Watt v Rama [1972] VR 353

Unborn ChildUnborn Child

• Wrongful life casesWrongful life cases– Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15 (9 May Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15 (9 May

2006) Appeal dismissed (7 to 1 majority)2006) Appeal dismissed (7 to 1 majority)– Crennan J (Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Heydon Crennan J (Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Heydon

JJ agreeing), Hayne J and Callinan J in JJ agreeing), Hayne J and Callinan J in separate judgments dismissed the Appealseparate judgments dismissed the Appeal

– Kirby J dissentedKirby J dissented

Harriton v StephensHarriton v Stephens

• Crennan J (Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Heydon JJ Crennan J (Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Heydon JJ agreeing) agreeing)

• [244] [244] ““It was not Dr P R Stephens's fault that It was not Dr P R Stephens's fault that Alexia Harriton was injured by the rubella Alexia Harriton was injured by the rubella infection of her mother. Once she had been infection of her mother. Once she had been affected by the rubella infection of her affected by the rubella infection of her mother it was not possible for her to enjoy a mother it was not possible for her to enjoy a life free from disability. ... Dr P R Stephens life free from disability. ... Dr P R Stephens would have discharged his duty by would have discharged his duty by diagnosing the rubella and advising Mrs diagnosing the rubella and advising Mrs Harriton about her circumstances, enabling Harriton about her circumstances, enabling her to decide whether to terminate her her to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy; he could not require or compel pregnancy; he could not require or compel Mrs Harriton to have an abortion. Mrs Harriton to have an abortion. ””

Harriton v StephensHarriton v Stephens

• Crennan J (Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Heydon JJ Crennan J (Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Heydon JJ agreeing) agreeing)

• [249] [249] ““It is not to be doubted that a doctor has a It is not to be doubted that a doctor has a duty to advise a mother of problems arising in her duty to advise a mother of problems arising in her pregnancy, and that a doctor has a duty of care to a pregnancy, and that a doctor has a duty of care to a foetus which may be mediated through the foetus which may be mediated through the mother[403]. mother[403]. However, it must be mentioned that However, it must be mentioned that those duties are not determinative of the specific those duties are not determinative of the specific question here, namely whether the particular question here, namely whether the particular damage claimed in this case by the child engages a damage claimed in this case by the child engages a duty of care.duty of care. To superimpose a further duty of care To superimpose a further duty of care on a doctor to a foetus (when born) to advise the on a doctor to a foetus (when born) to advise the mother so that she can terminate a pregnancy in mother so that she can terminate a pregnancy in the interest of the foetus in not being born, which the interest of the foetus in not being born, which may or may not be compatible with the same may or may not be compatible with the same doctor's duty of care to the mother in respect of her doctor's duty of care to the mother in respect of her interests, has the capacity to introduce conflict, interests, has the capacity to introduce conflict, even incoherence, into the body of relevant legal even incoherence, into the body of relevant legal principle principle ””

RESCUERS RESCUERS

• There are two separate issues in rescue:There are two separate issues in rescue:– The The ‘‘dutyduty’’ to rescue to rescue– The duty of care owed to the rescuerThe duty of care owed to the rescuer

• There is no positive legal obligation in the There is no positive legal obligation in the common law to rescuecommon law to rescue

– The law does not The law does not ‘‘cast a duty upon a man to go to the cast a duty upon a man to go to the aid of another who is in peril or distress, not caused aid of another who is in peril or distress, not caused by him”: Hargrave v Goldman (`963)by him”: Hargrave v Goldman (`963)

• There may however exist a duty to rescue There may however exist a duty to rescue in master servant relationships or boat in master servant relationships or boat owner and guest relationships for instance owner and guest relationships for instance

– Horsley v Maclaren (The Ogopogo) (1971) 22 DLRHorsley v Maclaren (The Ogopogo) (1971) 22 DLR

• One is only required to use reasonable care One is only required to use reasonable care and skill in the rescue and skill in the rescue

THE DUTY OWED TO THE DUTY OWED TO RESCUERS RESCUERS

• The rescuer is generally protected : torts recognizes the The rescuer is generally protected : torts recognizes the existence of a duty of care owed to the rescuer. existence of a duty of care owed to the rescuer.

• The issue of The issue of volenti-non fit injuria: volenti-non fit injuria: This principle does not This principle does not seem to apply in modern tort law to rescue situations. seem to apply in modern tort law to rescue situations.

• ‘‘The cry of danger is the summons to relief. The law does The cry of danger is the summons to relief. The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind.. It recognizes not ignore these reactions of the mind.. It recognizes them as normal… and places their effects within the range them as normal… and places their effects within the range of of the natural and the probable [and for that matter the of of the natural and the probable [and for that matter the foreseeable] foreseeable] per Cardozo J in per Cardozo J in Wagner v International Wagner v International Railway Co. (Railway Co. (1921)1921)

– Chapman v HearseChapman v Hearse– Videan v British Transport Commission Videan v British Transport Commission (1963) (rescue attempt to get (1963) (rescue attempt to get

a child trespassing on railway line)a child trespassing on railway line)• Rescuers may recover for both physical injuries and Rescuers may recover for both physical injuries and

nervous shocknervous shock– Mount Isa Mines v Pusey (1970)Mount Isa Mines v Pusey (1970)

• The US fire-fighterThe US fire-fighter’’s Rule does not apply in Australia and s Rule does not apply in Australia and the UKthe UK

– Ogwo v Taylor (1988) AC 431Ogwo v Taylor (1988) AC 431

IMPACT OF THE CIVIL IMPACT OF THE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT ON THE DUTY LIABILITY ACT ON THE DUTY

OF CAREOF CARE

• The The Civil Liability Act 2002Civil Liability Act 2002 together with the together with the Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002Responsibility) Act 2002 govern the law of govern the law of negligence in NSW. negligence in NSW. – The The Civil Liability Act 2002Civil Liability Act 2002 was enacted 28 was enacted 28thth May 2002 and May 2002 and

received assent on 18 June 2002received assent on 18 June 2002

• Rationale behind the legislation:Rationale behind the legislation:– to limit the quantum of damages for personal injury and death to limit the quantum of damages for personal injury and death

in public liability instances; resultantly lowering insurance in public liability instances; resultantly lowering insurance premiums. premiums.

– to discourage to discourage ‘‘over litigationover litigation’’, by the imposition of , by the imposition of restrictions and obligations and responsibilities upon restrictions and obligations and responsibilities upon plaintiffs and counsel plaintiffs and counsel

Civil Liability Act 2002: Civil Liability Act 2002: Duty of CareDuty of Care

• Statute overrides the common law and Statute overrides the common law and that any negligence claim commenced that any negligence claim commenced since 20 March 2002 will be governed since 20 March 2002 will be governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002. by the Civil Liability Act 2002.

• Next lecture, we will consider the Next lecture, we will consider the application of:application of:

– general duty of care provisions of s.5B; general duty of care provisions of s.5B; – situations of obvious/inherent risks under ss.5F situations of obvious/inherent risks under ss.5F

to I; and to I; and – situations of dangerous recreational activities situations of dangerous recreational activities

under ss.5J to N.under ss.5J to N.

The Rationale for ReformThe Rationale for Reform

• [I]t's my view that this country is [I]t's my view that this country is tying itself up in tape because of tying itself up in tape because of over litigation, a long-term trend over litigation, a long-term trend to see us litigate for everything, to see us litigate for everything, to try to settle every problem in to try to settle every problem in our lives...by getting a big cash our lives...by getting a big cash payment from the courts....a payment from the courts....a country as small as ours can't country as small as ours can't afford to have afford to have the American-style the American-style culture of litigation".culture of litigation". (Bob Carr) (Bob Carr)

The Rationale for ReformThe Rationale for Reform

• ‘‘We need to restore personal We need to restore personal responsibility and diminish the culture responsibility and diminish the culture of blame.of blame.That means a fundamental re-That means a fundamental re-think of the law of negligence,think of the law of negligence, a a complex task of legislative drafting.complex task of legislative drafting.There is no precedent for what we are There is no precedent for what we are doing, either in health care or motor doing, either in health care or motor accident law, or in the legislation of accident law, or in the legislation of other States and Territories.other States and Territories.We are changing a body of law that has We are changing a body of law that has taken the courts 70 years to developtaken the courts 70 years to develop’’ (Bob Carr)(Bob Carr)

The Approach to Reform: The Approach to Reform: Government’s ViewGovernment’s View

• We propose to change the law to We propose to change the law to exclude claims that exclude claims that should never be should never be broughtbrought and provide defences to ensure and provide defences to ensure that people that people who have done the right who have done the right thing are not made to pay just because thing are not made to pay just because they have access to insurancethey have access to insurance (Bob Carr) (Bob Carr)

• We want to protect good samaritans We want to protect good samaritans who help in emergencies. As a who help in emergencies. As a community, we should be reluctant to community, we should be reluctant to expose people who help others to the expose people who help others to the risk of being judged after the event to risk of being judged after the event to have not helped well enough (Bob Carr)have not helped well enough (Bob Carr)

Wrap-UpWrap-Up





Documents

LAW OF TORTS