NSW Negligence Evaluation Tool
THE FUTURE IS CALLING
Welcome to the Negligence Evaluation Tool, an innovative web-based application designed to educate users on the intricacies of negligence law as applied in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Drawing upon the established principles of common law and statutory provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, this tool serves as a guiding framework for understanding potential legal scenarios.
Background: Common Law Principles in NSW
Negligence law in NSW is grounded in the duty of care concept, requiring one to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others. The tool incorporates key sections from the Civil Procedure Act that align with the principles of negligence, offering a comprehensive legal framework relevant to NSW.
The Determination of a Duty of Care Hinges on Several Factors:
Duty of Care
Negligence law in NSW is grounded in the duty of care concept, requiring one to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others. The determination of a duty of care hinges on several factors:
- Established Duty Category: Recognized relationships, such as doctor-patient or employer-employee, where a duty of care is presumed.
- High Court Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR: This case highlights the necessity for:
- Reasonable foreseeability of the plaintiff.
- Salient features identify the imposition of a duty of care.
- Absence of any legal or policy reasons precluding a duty of care.
- Novel Duty of Care: Cases where the duty does not fit within an established category, relying on "salient features" such as the vulnerability of the plaintiff and the defendant's knowledge and control over the risk.
- Test of ‘Reasonable Foreseeability’: As established in Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 33, the identification of risk is paramount. It emphasizes that a duty of care does not constitute an obligation to prevent harm but to exercise reasonable care.
Breach of Duty
The evaluation of a Breach of Duty revolves around the conduct expected of a reasonable individual in a similar situation. The Civil Liability Act (CLA) specifically addresses this in section 5B, which requires an analysis of whether:
- The risk was foreseeable, meaning that the person knew or ought to have known of the risk.
- The risk was not insignificant.
- A reasonable person in the same position would have taken the precautions to mitigate the risk.
In Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer, the concept of "reasonable foreseeability" was highlighted as a crucial element in the assessment of a breach. It clarifies that the duty of care obliges one to exercise reasonable caution rather than an absolute duty to prevent harm. Section 5B(2) invites consideration of the probability of harm, its potential gravity, the effort required to prevent the harm, and the social utility of the defendant's conduct. This is all informed by a balance of factors, often referred to as the "Shirt calculus" after Shirt v Wyong Shire Council, a foundational case that outlines the evaluation of breach.
Causation
The causation analysis involves factual and normative considerations, primarily under section 5D. The "but for" test and the extent of liability within the context of the negligent act are examined.
- Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 37: Outlines the distinct questions of causation: the historical fact of how harm occurred and the normative question of legal responsibility.
- March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd 1991 171 CLR 506: Demonstrates the 'common sense' approach to liability, even when multiple parties contribute to the harm.
- 'But For' Test: Noted in case of law as not the exclusive test for causation. The scope of liability often requires consideration beyond the 'but for' test to determine the extension of the defendant’s liability, as seen in March v Stramare.
Remoteness and Damage
In negligence law, the concept of Remoteness serves as a filter to limit liability to reasonably foreseeable consequences. The classic formulation in The Wagon Mound remains a cornerstone, establishing that a defendant is not liable for damage of a kind that was not foreseeable. This principle maintains that only harm that is a direct and natural consequence of the negligent act should give rise to compensation.
Damages are the quantifiable compensation sought for a breach of duty that has caused loss or injury. It is not enough that the defendant owed a duty and breached it; the plaintiff must also have suffered actual damage as a direct result. In NSW, damages may include compensation for physical injury, property damage, mental harm, and economic loss. Each category demands specific proof, with the damage being not too 'remote' or speculative in nature.
These principles are elucidated in cases such as March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd, where both the directness of the causation and the foreseeability of the type of harm are pivotal to establishing liability. The combined requirements of causation, as articulated in section 5D of the CLA, and the non-remoteness of damage work in tandem to ensure that only the harm that is closely connected to the negligent act is compensable.
Negligence Evaluation Tool
Duty of Care
50%
Is the responsibility an established duty category?
50%
Is there a novel duty of care – not an established category?
Breach
50%
Was the risk not insignificant?
50%
Causation
Did the breach of duty of care cause the damage?
Is it appropriate for the scope of the negligent person's liability to extend to the harm caused?
Remoteness
Is the kind of damage too remote?
Damage
Was there a physical injury?
Was there property damage?
Was there mental harm?
Was there pure economic loss?