Tort Test Review Ans
description
Transcript of Tort Test Review Ans
Tort test review
Q1
Duty of care Sue taxi driver and bus driver Taxi driver – direct Bus driver – indirect
o Relationship between the driver and passenger – established dutyo Crashed and hurt minutes later
Breach of duty Driver prevented leaving
VolentiEx turpi – crime to walk on a highway
Q2
Duty of care Injury indirectly inflicted by the school full duty of care criteria applies
o Because it is the student’s own free will to commit suicide; not like slippery floor)
Fiduciary relationship – maybe; well-recognized relationship of duty of care
Another argument: primary victim of punitive measures humiliation by the teacher, therefore suffer from psychological distress and harm
o Also a remoteness issue?o T case?
Foreseeabilityo Reasonably foreseeable – (Reeves?)o But may not be, because it is indirectly inflicted
Proximityo Particularized relationship – he is the teacher’s student
Fairness and justice or policyo Suicide should not attract a duty in generalo Extra resources for taking care of pupils – own act, free willo Known psychiatric illness history, and taken into the school –
should be taken care of Reeves: in general it is rare to have a duty owed to somebody who
committed suicide unless in special circumstances
Breach of duty Standard of care: standard of a reasonable school – standard higher than
the reasonable standard because a school is specialized in educationo Standard of school: can be found in codes/ usual practices, taking
in the major peculiar circumstances
o The teacher did not even know the guidelines, may still did a good job although did not see the guideline but this suggests a breach
o School still breach the duty because did not give the guideline to the teachers
o Alleged breach: the failure to address this boy’s needs
Causation Can we really say the school’s conduct causes the suicide? But for test:
o 17-day lapse – suggests there could be other causeso may not pass the testo may be just a trigger, would happen anyway
Remoteness
Defences Volenti – voluntary assumption of risk
o Full knowledge of consequenceso What policy argument would be relevant?
If we have proved a duty, and now under the defences and take away the duty by applying volenti
Contributory negligenceo Failure to take care own safetyo Causationo Apportionment – reeves; who is to blame more, relative
blameworthiness Boy: young and vulnerable; school: professional
o LARCO: Fault can include deliberate conducto Reeves: policy result because better avoid the all-or-nothing
approach Ex turpi causa
o Suicide – illegal?o Arguableo Close connectiono Public conscienceo Pitt v hunt