7052-非常重要.騎自行車撞到小孩媽媽受驚看電視的也是否有dutyof

1、TutorialK4:Chapters24and(1. 受驚，看電視的也受驚，是否有 duty of care 2. 置不合理，行人車輛互相看不見，opal 的貨車liable in negligence/ breanch 3.TutorialK4:Chapters24and(1. 受驚，看電視的也受驚，是否有 duty of care 2. 置不合理，行人車輛互相看不見，opal 的貨車liable in negligence/ breanch 3.，醫(yī)生是否 liable in negligence 車告怎么 defence/ contributory negligence 5.沒有認(rèn)真審

2、計，是否 liable in negligence，relationship rely on your act 6. 員犯錯是否可向公司索賠/ 公司是否有責(zé)任1. Because he is not paying attention, Alex runs over and injures a child on a pedestrian crossing. The childs mother, who is standing nearby, suffers shock and requires medical treatment. Bev, who does not know the child

3、, sees report of the t night es ill when she pictures of the blood on the road. Did Alex owe the child, its mother and/or Bev a duty of care?AlexvtheRoadusersoweadutyofcaretootherroadusers:jeanschvcoffey法條加Therefore,AlexowesthechildadutyofAlexvthe A duty of care exists n the tortfeasor and those who

4、 suffer nervous as a result of seeing or hearing about injuries to those who are close to them.法Therefore,AlexowesthemotheradutyofAlexvAdutyofcareexistsnthetortfeasorandthosewhosuffernervousasaresultofseeingorhearingaboutinjuriestothosewhoareclosetoBevwasnot“close”tothechild.Sheonlysawitonatvreport.

5、Inotherwords, she is too far removed.Therefore,AlexdoesnotoweBevadutyofThe exit from s loading dock is via a poorly lit alley n two buildings. The alley crosses a footpath before emerging o Drivers and passing pedestrians have difficulty seeing one ano has, therefore, put a large sign nearsound horn

6、. It also considered placing convex mirro buildings at the end of the alley sothe rivers of pedestrians but discarded the idea because it would have been very and because no-one else does it anyway. Phil, who had just made a delivery to Opal , drove out of the alley sounding his horn as he did so. U

7、nfortuna y, Quinlin, a profoundly deaf pedestrian who was approaching the entrance to the alley at the time, did not hear the horn and, as Phil emerged from the alley, histruck struck Quinlin and injured him badly. Are either Opal Quinlin in negligence?or Phil liable For breach, must set out the sta

8、ndard of care and show whether care was beached 法條.t standard Whatisthestandardofcare：法條(Wrongs)Act2002Section 42： standard of t of a hedefendants d, or oughtition of the t the reasonablytohavehad,atthetimeoftheFor breach, must set out the standard of care and show whether care was beached 法條.t stan

9、dard Whatisthestandardofcare：法條(Wrongs)Act2002Section 42： standard of t of a hedefendants d, or oughtition of the t the reasonablytohavehad,atthetimeoftheincidentwheretheharm 案例RomeovConservationoftheNorthernHaveopal/PhilbreachedtheirdutyofWould ve been reasonable to expect an ordinary, reasonable a

10、nd in these to have done n erect a large requiringdriverstosoundtheirhorn? Probability of harm is high likely high (given it is a narrow alley wi corner, and trucks driving around all the time)Seriousness of harm is high (getting hit by a truck is likely to cause serious injury or death)Burden of ta

11、king precautions is likely low (for opal - would not cost much to install convex mirrors; for Phil would ve been difficult to drive etoutoftruckandcheckwhatwasaroundcorner) l utility factors not relevant here.3. Umberto went to the doctor complaining of stomach cr s 絞痛 and a general malaise 不舒服. The

12、 doctor prescribed antacid and bed rest. Umberto, who had, in fact, accidentally ingested 攝入 arsenic 砒霜, subsequently died. Is the doctor liable in negligence to Umbertos family?Cleardutyofcare- doctorandAtdoctorheremisdiagnosed(butwouldneedmoreKeyeis whetherthebreachofdutywasane the harm (i.e. The

13、“but for” test) 法條是否誤診是引起的必要條件，不是。saryconditionoftheoccurrencet Umberto would diedinanycase(i.e.Itwasinevitable),causationwouldnotbesatisfiedTherefore,thedoctorwouldnotbeXenon, a garbage collector, was badly injured when his truck was involved in nother vehicle. At the time of the , he was riding on

14、 passenger side step of the garbage truck (a practice expressly forbidden by his employers) and he was crushed betn the two vehicles. What defenavailabletotheotherdriverifheedinKeyehereiscontributorywhetherxenonhasexercisedreasonablecareforhisown法條(Wrongs) Act 2002 ACT ，Contributory negligence, the

15、pla s47，iff was also negligent:： s 102， damages can be apportioned； so be reduced to zerohis case, xenon appears not to have exercised reasonable care forwhetherxenonhasexercisedreasonablecareforhisown法條(Wrongs) Act 2002 ACT ，Contributory negligence, the pla s47，iff was also negligent:： s 102， damag

16、es can be apportioned； so be reduced to zerohis case, xenon appears not to have exercised reasonable care for his own Riding on the passenger side step of the garbage truck seems to have recognised as a dangerous practice (as evidenced by the fact employers expressly forbade it)Therefore,xenonwaslik

17、elycontributorilyt 5.Jeremy,anaccountant,wasaskedbythedirectorsoftoaudititsHe t the audit report would be given to Lyn to induce her to invest money the company (though he had never actually met her). The audit was done and Jeremy t the accounts disclosed a true and fair view of companys ition when,

18、 in fact, they did not. Lyn and Marge, a friend whom Lyn showed the report, both lost money when the company collapsed. Is Jeremy liable in negligent missement to Lyn and/or Marge?NegligentA duty of care will exist where the relationship n the parties tone of them is clearly relying or depending upon the others knowledge, ability skilltisorshouldbeapparenttotheother.法LynvHereLynisrelyingonJeremysknowledge,abilityandAnd Jeremy is awaretLynisrelyingonhisknowledge,abilityandskill. Therefore, duty of careMargev HeremargeisrelyingonJeremysknowledge,abilityandskill.