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