LA2020 Workshop 2

The concept of reasonable foreseeability plays a role in:

• two of the three elements of the tort of negligence.

• all of the three elements of the tort of negligence.

• one of the three elements of the tort of negligence

• none of the three elements of the tort of negligence

The plaintiff must show that it was reasonably foreseeable that a class of persons (which the plaintiff belonged):

• would suffer a consequence that the defendant should have been aware of

• would suffer a consequence of the defendant's action.

• would suffer a consequence of the same general character as that which actually eventuated.

Under the duty of care, reasonable foreseeability is a prospective test.

• This means that the subjective person is placed in the shoes of the plaintiff just before the alleged act of negligence.

• This means that the objective person is placed in the shoes of the plaintiff just before the alleged act of negligence.

• This means that the subjective person is placed in the shoes of the defendant just before the alleged act of negligence.

• This means that the objective person is placed in the shoes of the defendant just before the alleged act of negligence.

In Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, Brennan J stated it is preferable that the law should develop novel categories of negligence

:

• if the established category is similar to the novel category.

• incrementally and by analogy with established categories.

• by analogy with established categories.

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 held:

• The Caparo test is part of Queensland law.

• The Caparo test is still part of Australian law.

• The Caparo test is no longer part of Australian law.

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 held:

• There is no unifying principle giving rise to a duty of care in novel situations.

• There are a defined set of principles giving rise to a duty of care in novel situations.