By Monika, Max, Vanja, Nicole KEY PRINCIPLES OF NEGLIGENCE

 Negligence is defined as a failure to take reasonable care. A person is obliged to take reasonable care in regards to other people in situations where it is foreseeable that other people could be harmed by their actions or omissions. NEGLIGENCE

There are four key principles for negligence: 1)Duty of Care 2)Breach of a Duty of Care (standard of care) 3)Causation 4)Loss or Harm KEY PRINCIPLES

 When bringing an action for negligence it must be proved that the person who was negligent owed a duty of care to the person injured. This is referred to as the duty of care.  A person owes a duty of care if there was a risk that was foreseeable or the risk was significant. They also need to have the duty of care if in the circumstances a reasonable person would have taken precautions to minimise the possible risks. DUTY OF CARE

 One example of when there is an exception to the duty of care is when a person donated food in good faith for charity purposes. They are protected from legal liability if someone is harmed from having consumed the food so long as it was safe to consume at the time that it left the possession of the donor.  Volunteers or people who do community work for a community organisation cannot be held personally liable if they cause any damage or harm to others. Instead, the organisation may be held liable if the worker was not affected by drugs or alcohol.  When a person donates food for charitable purposes, they are protected from legal liability if another person is harmed due to consuming the food – this is only if the food was safe to consume when it left the donor’s possession.  Volunteers are not able to be held personally liable if they cause an injury to another person. However, the community organisation are able to be held responsible on the circumstances that the worker was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol and acted within the instructions given by the organisation. EXCEPTIONS TO THE DUTY OF CARE

 This refers to when a person does not take the care they should be taking. Breaching the duty (or breaking it) is when the defendant does not meet the expectations and fails to do what a reasonable and average person would have done. Depending on the case this will vary, circumstances also play a part.  When determining whether a reasonable person would have taken the precautions expected against a risk of harm, the court considers things such as:  The likely risk of harm  The likely seriousness of harm  The burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm  The social benefit of the activity that creates risk or harm BREACH OF A DUTY OF CARE (STANDARD OF CARE)

 An unbroken link to prove that their was a breach of duty of care. This is important for case’s that have been going for a long time. It also needs to proved that one person’s actions led to another getting injured. If their was harm that was to remote in claiming negligence. If a person suffers from certain shocks, like hearing a car accident no one will be sued. CAUSATION

 As a general rule, the plaintiff can only rely on a legal remedy through the law of negligence if it can be proved that he or she suffered a loss or harm, even if it is minor  The loss or harm can be physical, mental or damage to property. LOSS OR HARM