• Civil wrong other than a breach of contract
• Causes personal hurt. belongings harm or fiscal loss • Innocent party normally claims amendss
• Purpose – justness to be achieved by reassigning kiss I’m the victim to wrongdoer • Principle – each citizen should take duty for effects of his/her actions

Types of civil wrongs ( civil wrongs ) ?
• Compensation is the main redress sought
• Nuisance. calumny. carelessness. trespass. liability for unsafe animate beings • Nuisance – something unauthorized that is objectionable or deleterious to community at big or to an person. particularly in relation to his/her ownership of belongings • Trespass – direct an improper intervention with ownership of individual. belongings or land. regardless or purpose of intruder

Tortes poetries contract jurisprudence
• Tort jurisprudence – particular relationship other than a contract which forms the footing of civil claims ( e. g. Patient/doctor. parent/child ) • Contract jurisprudence – lawfully adhering understanding forms the footing of the civil claim • For a civil wrong to be successful – complainant must turn out being of certain elements that give rise to a particular relationship ( e. g. Teacher/student. employer/employee ) • Same state of affairs ( e. g. Motor vehicle accident ) can give rise to both a condemnable tribunal and a civil tribunal action • Criminal carelessness – a individuals action or skip is so utmost that they are charged with a condemnable offense • Almost wittingly doing them injury to victim or accident • Must have known that person else was likely to be injured

PowerPoint 2
Part B – civil wrongs – Negligence

Why are carelessness Torahs needed?
• More carelessness instances are brought before the Queensland tribunals than any other type of civil action • Person has suffered personal hurt. belongings harm or economic loss • Law of carelessness – requires injured individual to happen person to fault for accident ; tribunals have power to order person at mistake to pay compensation for hurt. loss or harm to guiltless party • Apportioning incrimination to individual at mistake is just manner if compensating people for their loss ; acts as a hindrance against negligent behavior in community

Elementss of cogent evidence
• Breach of a person’s/organisation’s responsibility to take sensible attention in fortunes which causes harm to another person/organisation • Balance of chances
• Defendant must owe responsibility of attention to plaintiff
• Defendant must transgress this responsibility by neglecting to run into needed criterion of attention • Damage to plaintiff must be caused by breach of responsibility of attention • Vicarious liability – higher authorization may be apt for amendss. even though it has non been personally negligent

Duty of attention
• A individual is required to carry through a peculiar criterion of behavior. therefore holding a responsibility to take sensible attention spot to do injury to others. • Must see the relationship between the parties – “neighbour principle” • Neighbor rule – trial for set uping whether there is a responsibility of attention owed by one individual to another • Tests:

• Proximity demand
• Foreseeability rule
• Established by Donoghue V Stevenson

|Proximity demand |Foreseeable rule
| |- individuals who was so closely and straight affected by my act |- what a sensible individual in places of suspect should hold been able to | | |foresee would be the consequence of his or her actions | |3 types of propinquity | | |- physical ( infinite & A ; clip ) | | |- circumstantial ( relationship of parties ) | | |- casual ( intimacy or straightness of actions ) | | •

PowerPoint 3
Two redresss available-
• Damagess
• Compensation for hurt. harm or loss suffered by complainant ; • General: hurting and agony. loss of comfortss of life. loss of outlooks of life and disfiguration ; scale value • Special: outgo capable of being given a precise value • Future economic loss: future net incomes if can non work

• Court order- commands a party to halt executing negligent act

Strict Liability
• Person will be held to be apt for injury caused by his other actions. whether or non it was that person’s mistake ; • Cattle trespass ;
• Scienter rule- imposed on a individual who keeps a wild animate being ; • Breach of statutory duty- WH & A ; S statute law

PowerPoint 4 – Defamation
Nature of Defamation
• Gives persons right to protect their repute in community ; • Difficult undertaking of striking a balance between right of an person to action for calumny and freedom of information. address and of the imperativeness

• Defamation Act 2005 ( Qld )
• No differentiation made between slander ( spoken ) or libel ( written. printed or recorded ) • Defamation non available to dead people and the decease of a individual negates defamation action • Three elements:

• calumniatory affair.
• mention to complainant.
• publication
Defamatory affair
• Three sorts of imputations
• A person’s repute is lowered ;
• Person is likely to be injured in his or her trade or profession ; and • Exposed to roast or others are caused to eschew or avoid them • Onus on complainant to turn out that affair is calumniatory ; “ordinary sensible person” trial ; • Person’s reputation-injured if referred to as incompetent. dishonest. missing in rule. condemnable. prevaricator. racialist Mention to the complainant

• Even if there is no purpose to slander anyone in the stuff published. individual can still be apt for calumny ; • Even when a fabricated name or merely a missive or alphabet is used to depict an person. there may be sufficient facts that article refers to plaintiff • A category of people can be jointly defamed ; possible for complainant to demo: • Member of category defamed ;

• Matter is thereby moderately ascribable to him or her
• Group must be reasonably little to win
• Defamation can non happen if incident takes topographic point in private-regarded as a personal affair ; • Publication occurs one time a 3rd party is involved ;
• Publication definition-communication through spoken words. hearable sounds. speech production of such words. doing of such sounds. marks. signals. gestures. facial look to a individual other than the one being defamed • May Sue more than one individual for publication of calumniatory stuff printed in newspaper ; Sue writer. publication. pressman ; • Anyone who repeats calumniatory statement will be merely every bit apt as individual who originated it ; • Strict liability-motive of publishing house is irrelevant

Written by

I'm Colleen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out