Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Applying negligence principles
Applying negligence principles
Contributory negligence tort law essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Applying negligence principles
Emily Crawford
Thursday 2-4
Word Count: 1742
Marien v Gardiner [2013] NSWCA 396
New South Wales Court of Appeal.
Before: Macfarlan JA, Meagher JA, Emmett JA
Material Facts:
1. 5am, 3 February 2009, Mr. Gardiner (respondent) was struck by Ms. Marien’s (appellant) vehicle on Centenary Avenue.
2. Mr. Gardiner was dressed in dark clothing and walking along the road in conditions not conducive to clear vision.
3. Ms. Marien was driving with her lights on low beam and her car struck Mr. Gardiner causing him serious injuries.
Procedural History:
Mr. Gardiner (respondent) brought proceedings against Ms. Marien (appellant) in the New South Wales District Court (NSWDC). Respondent claimed negligence on the basis of the appellant’s failure to be vigilant. Handed down 31 January 2013.
NSWDC found that:
1. The appellant was negligent in not using high beam headlights;
2. There should be a reduction in the respondent’s damages should be reduced by 50% due to contributory negligence.
Legal Issues Facing the Court: Marien v Gardiner [2013] NSWCA 396 [26]
1. Was it a condition of the collision that the appellant had failed to keep a proper lookout?
2. Was the appellant negligent for not having her headlights on high beam?
3. Did the primary judge err in assessing a 50% reduction in damages due to contributory negligence?
Ratio decidendi
1. Expert opinion that is not objected to or contradicted should inform the finding of a judge. [Ibid 32] (Meagher JA)
Expert opinion was given on the ability of the appellant to keep a careful lookout in the circumstances of the incident. Given that this information was not contradicted, and there was no compelling reason to find otherwise, that evidence should have informed the finding...
... middle of paper ...
...dividuals from themselves. Moreover, a failure to anticipate the potential negligence of other individuals, particularly where the harms are potentially quite high as is the case in motor vehicle accidents, is probably a failure of the duty of care that one holds for one’s self. A reasonable person would probably anticipate and take precautions against these harms and it is important that the legal system is consistent in the application of the principles of reasonable precautions.
In conclusion, contributory negligence recognises the complex relationships between the actions of plaintiffs and defendants and how those relationships can sometimes lead to harm. In those cases, individuals should be held accountable only for the quantum of harm that they are culpable for. A system of justice that does not recognise this relationship cannot be said to truly be just.
As pointed out by Meagher JA in Marien v Gardiner it is not possible that the driver could foresee and react to any event that could take place within the area surrounding the vehicle. Therefore, the driver could not have breached his duty of care in any circumstance that an object by chance is to collide with a vehicle on the road.
Counsel of the appellant sought a certificate from the judge to bring an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal against the admissibility of the coincidence evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling the coincidence evidence inadmissible. It adopted a different approach than that in NSW in reviewing the ruling of the Evidence.
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
In the Worcester Cold Storage fire the defendants were initially charged with six counts each of involuntary manslaughter. However the Superior Court dismissed the incitements because the court declared that the defendants did not have a duty to act (report the fire) and that their actions did not satisfy the standard of wanton and reckless conduct required for a manslaughter charge. However, in the appeal the commonwealth presented evidence that the defendants did have a duty to act and their behavior at the time of and after the fire shows a pattern of wanton and reckless behavior.
The tort of negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar circumstance. Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, a failure to exercise reasonable care. Cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages and proximate cause. Which is showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.
In conclusion, as shown throughout this paper, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence comes in several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. When evidence is presented, it acceptance in trial depends on relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
Bailey Press --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] (2000) 2 All ER 289, [2] QB 133 [3] (1965) 2 QB 29 [4] 15 Ch D 96 [5] Law Com. No. 164 (1987), para.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at approximately 1325 hours a unit was dispatched to the scene of a two car property damage collision reported. It was located at the intersection of Red Street and Yellow Boulevard in the Town of Campbell, NY. Upon arrival both drivers were interviewed and are the only witnesses present at the scene. Ms. Steering accounts that her direction of travel was southbound on Red Road, where she stopped at the intersection controlling the intersection with Yellow Boulevard. She then began to make a right turn and was struck in the east lane by Mr. Dormant's vehicle that was travelling east on Yellow Boulevard. Mr. Dormant account was that Ms. Steering was in the wrong. He makes the argument that she didn’t adhere to traffic rules and pulled out in front of him. He states he had the right of way and was obeying the traffic rules/signs 30mph. Ms. Steering states she stopped at the stop sign and that Mr. Dormant was speeding. But there are no other witnesses available. Both vehicles came to rest in the middle of the intersection. Ms. Steerings’ vehicle had to be towed from the scene by We Hook It Towing to their facility located in Campbell, NY and Mr. Dormant drove away from the scene. An important element to consider in traffic collisions is roadway