Commercial Law Flow Charts and Notes Essay

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question Donoghue v Stevenson Neighbour Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour- Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question Donoghue v Stevenson Reasonable Person Test – individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) Papatonakis v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1985) That it is appropriate for the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused This was stated in Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and is consistent with the case of Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak Other Tests: for a causal link to exist these elements must be satisfied: iii. Negligence was a necessary condition for the occurrence of the harm iv. That it is appropriate for the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused This was stated in Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and is consistent with the case of Adeels Palace.