Torts Exam Preparation
Negligence
Negligence is: a lack of proper care and attention/carelessness.
Carelessness = key element of negligence, foundation for legal liability.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Negligence Formula:
Duty of care: does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?
Breach of care: Has the defendant breached a duty of care?
Causation: Was the damage suffered by the claimant, caused by the defendants
breach of that duty?
Remoteness: was the damage a sufficiently proximate consequence of the breach?
Defences: does the defendant have any defences that may relieve him/her?
Liabilities/Remedies: what is recoverable/what damage can the plaintiff claim.
(vicarious liability: Rose v Plenty)
Foreseeability & Proximity:
(consider if the def reasonably had foreseen the damage/injury caused to their neighbour)
In establishing a prima facie duty of care, the first requirement is that a reasonable person
in the defendants person would have been able to foresee, that harm could result to the
plaintiff if he or she failed to take reasonable care.

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd: (government bodies and vicarious liability) This
case widened the scope of duty of care. The officers owed a duty of care to the
respondents as they ought to have foreseen as a likelihood in the absence of
adequate control/supervision.

McCarthy v Wellington City [1996] NZLR 481 (CA): (extension of proximity): council
left detonators in a safe without safety signage. Boys removed pin from hinge.
Explosives taken home, later given to little brother. Hand exploded. the council
were held liable as it may have been reasonably foreseen that the detonators could
be obtained by an irresponsible person. Involving cases of harm, a duty care may
prevail on foreseeability grounds – even in the absence of proximity.

North Shore City Council v Attorney-General (The Grange): “foreseeability is at
best a screening mechanism, to exclude claims which must obviously fail because
no reasonable person in the shoes of the defendant would have foreseen the loss.”

Rolls-Royce v Carter Holt Harvey: (contract vs tort) two stages of inquiry were run
together. Noting that the boundary between proximity and policy can merge.
Duties were covered in contract not tort.

Patel v de Boer: (foreseeable that brakes could be tampered) bus stolen when
parked on top of hill, window was left down by bus driver and the theft reached
through the window and released brake of bus on a hill, rolled down hill and
damage plaintiffs house. The actual act itself was not foreseeable but the type of
damage was foreseeable. (ie, the damage a bus causes to property when flying
downhill is foreseeable, but a man releasing bus brake is not.
(1) Duty of Care:
(neighbour principle, two stage test)
Reasonable foreseeability of harm to others is a necessary condition for a duty to arise,
but frequently in cases involving negligently inflicted economic loss, it is necessary but no
sufficient condition.


Donohue v Stevenson: In this case, Lord Atkin (at 580) established the neighbour
principle. This principle is based on the idea that “you must take reasonable care
to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to
injure your neighbour.”
Anns v Merton: established the two stage test relevant for determining a duty of
care.
(1) Foreseeability and proximity:
(2) policy considerations (anything negating liability):
o NOTE: policy considerations are founded on individual autonomy. The
courts must always consider if it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the
duty of care and whether it opens indeterminate liability.
Torts Exam Preparation
NOTE: Prima facie proximity: somebody who is closely and proximately affected by a
tortfeasors act. Close proximity may constitute physical vicinity, casual, circumstantial, or
assumed.

Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad (US): (series of events) platform guard assisted
man into train entry. Man dropped package containing fireworks. Explosion caused
injury to woman across platform. Platform guard not liable as they could not have
foreseen that their actions assisting a man would result in harm to a woman. The
element of proximity requires that a person could reasonably foresee a specific
harm occurring as a result of their actions.
(2) Breach of Duty of Care:
(the objective reasonable person test)
Question = Whether the defendants conduct fell below the standard of care.
 The standard of care would be what a reasonable person should have done in the
situation. (the question is what should have been done, not what could have been
done).
 Whether the standard of the reasonable person has been attained must be
determined in light of what is being done in what particular circumstances.
LEADING CASE: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856): (always apply): “The defendants
might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a
reasonable person would have done or did that which a person taking reasonable
precautions would not have.” This case established that an individual should be judged
against the actions of a reasonable man, who is not extraordinary, nor superhuman. A
person must contemplate what should be done (common sense) not what could have been
done (hindsight).
Standard of Care to apply:
(only need to prove one to establish Breach of duty but go over all).
Need to consider what the defendants purpose was in running the risk and whether there
was any social utility in the defendants actions. Weighing all the following considerations,
you need to determine whether the defendant was justified and therefore acted as a
reasonable person would have done.
Factors:
1. Probability of harm (real risk):
 Bolton v Stone: (low probability of harm due to the high fence): the probability of
harm was too remote as precautionary measures were already taken, although the
risk was high. Duty of care is not breached where a foreseeably real risk is so
extremely rare that such an occurrence might be considered an isolated incident.
 Wagon Mound No 2: (high probability of harm due to nature of fire): distinguished
Bolton as probability of harm was deemed to be high due to the presence of a real
risk, which is one that no reasonable man could discount. Care is breached where
a reasonable person in the same profession may foresee a real risk as a
consequence of acing carelessly, even if such risks are low.
2. Gravity of risk: (where an incident is likely to result in serious injury, there is a higher
expectation that precautionary measures have been undertaken to sufficiently eliminate
those risks).
 McCarthy v Wellington City [1966]: (gravity of risk high): probability of boys
stealing detonators was low, however it was foreseeable, and the gravity of risk
was great. It was readily foreseeable that insufficiently storing the detonators from
public access would likely result in a horrific accident.
3. Social Value: (whether continuing to carry out an activity an activity for societies benefit
outweighs the risks of the activity): (high social value may negate the breach of duty where
such benefits to the public reasonably outweigh the risks).
 Tomlinson v Congleton: quarry converted into leisure area. Warning signs
prohibiting swimming, rangers employed. A boy was rendered quadriplegic after
diving into the shallows. The council were not liable to provide premises protection
as they had taken adequate precautions to warn of danger. The park was safe and
there was an obvious risk. (res ipsa loquitur: obvious). A premises used for social
recreation is not rendered dangerous if adequate precautions have been met to
warn of potential risks on site.
4. Burden of precautionary measures: (a defendant is expected to reduce risks where the
burden of taking reasonable preventative measures is low given the circumstances).
 Bolton v Stone: (High burden): building a higher fence for the cricket arena is a high
burden of precautionary measure. Stadium already had a high fence; cost and time
Torts Exam Preparation



to build fence etc. the burden for the cricket grounds to take extra precaution was
high as they had taken practical measures by installing a fence to prevent injury.
Wagon Mound No 2: (low burden) the action to prevent the fire was to stop
welding, a low burden of precautionary measures. It was not unreasonable for
them to minimise risks by alleviating the leak.
Goldman v Hargreaves: (reasonable person test) (low burden): tree left to burn
out. The occupier was liable – omitting to put out the fire was unreasonable. The
burden for the occupier to put the fire out was low.
McCarthy v Wellington: (probability of harm = high; gravity of risk = high; social
value of the activity = low; burden of precautionary measures = low)
Omission/Failure to Act:
(only mention/address if it forms part of the question)
General principle = person bound to take care not to inflict damage but not bound to take
care positively to prevent injury.
A person is bound to exercise care not to inflict damage resulting from their omissions, but
not obliged to prevent an injury from happening that would peril themselves.

Hill v Chief Constable of W. Yorks Police [1989] AC 53 (HL): someone arrested for
misdemeanours. He was suspected but released for lack of evidence. Subsequently
murdered two more. The police were not liable. They hold a duty of public safety
generally, but there existed no indication these specific women were in
distinctively greater risk. Principle: there is no duty to the public to apprehend
criminals expeditiously, as this may detriment the effective function of the police
and exhaust resources.
(3) Causation
This involves analysing whether there is a link between the defendants actions and the
damage caused.
The two elements cause in fact and cause in law must be established. (causation and
remoteness can be considered together).
1. Cause in fact (but for): would a claimant still suffer the detriment had the
defendant not conducted the prima facie wrongdoing? If yes, claim fails. If no,
claim succeeds.
2. Cause in law (novus actus interveniens): a cause may fail where it is inconsistent
with legally established maxims.
Cause in fact: (but for test):


Yania v Bigan (1959) 155 A 2d 343: (obligation to rescue) coal operation. Water in
trenches. Land owner enticed a neighbouring operator into the water to start the
extraction pumps. The neighbour drowned. The land owner owed no duty of care
to the neighbour. Knowing the dangers, the neighbour drowned as a result of
placing himself into danger, not as a result of being enticed. Principle: a person is
under no obligation to rescue another person. All invitees must have awareness of
risks on the land or otherwise be notified of them.

Hughes v Lord Advocate (HL): workmen on tea break. Boys saw tent over exposed
manhole, no safety signage. Both went down. Dropped lamp causing explosion and
injury. The workmen owed a duty of care – exposing manhole and omitting to
alleviate the hazard was the casual nexus (connection) of the series of events.
Principle: a person must exercise an ordinary degree of precaution to inhibit a
person from being allured into the vicinity where danger could be anticipated.

(But for the defendants negligent act
the damage could not have occurred)
Barnett v Chelsea 1969: (ALWAYS APPLY): Doctor negligently sent patient home
and patient died of arsenic poisoning. The but for test was not proven because
there was no causal link between the death and the failure to diagnose arsenic
poisoning, as patient would have died anyway. This case established the principle
but for the defendants negligent actions would the claimant have suffered the
damage. (In applying this principle, is there a causal link between defendants
negligent act and the damage/injury).
Atlas Properties v Kapiti Coast DC: flooding became excessive due to undersized
culvert built by the council. The council were not liable in causation. The degree of
flooding that occurred was inevitable. Even if the culvert was adequate, the
downstream constriction was the cause. Causation is negated where the extent of
damage will occur anyway, regardless of precipitating factors being present.
Torts Exam Preparation


Baker v Willoughby (HL): (unbroken chain) (supervening events): B was hit by a car
injuring his ankle resulting in reduced income. He sued for lost earnings.
Subsequently, robber shot the same leg resulting in amputation. The subsequent
injury did not change his capacity resulting from the 1st injury – the claim for loss
of income would have been pursued anyway regardless of subsequent events.
Causation remains unbroken where the occurrence of an outcome is certain to
happen anyway, regardless of supervening events.
Performance Cars v Abraham (EWCA): (causation broken) negligent driver hit the
claimants car, it required a respray. Prior to this, the car had also been hit by
another negligent driver, requiring respray. The driver was not liable as the respray
was still pending from the prior accident – the claimant suffered no extra burden
(Baker followed). Principle: successive causes: compensation cannot be granted
where the claimant suffers no extra burden from subsequent causes.
the employees novus actus interveniens had rendered foreseeable risk, breaking
the chain of causation. Where a person’s unreasonable action result in subsequent
harm, it comes causa causans (immediate cause); initial injury ceases being a
contributory factor.

Reeves v Commissioner of Police (HL): prisoner was a known suicide risk. Police
left hatch in cell door open, prisoner tied his shirt around it and hung himself. The
police were responsible. The prisoner’s action did not break the chain of causation
as the suicide was causa cusata (cause resulting from initial cause). Where a
person is placed in the care of another, their action of committing suicide does not
break the chain of causation.

Harvey v PD (AU): (contributory negligence: where a victim contributes to a
foreseeable detriment through their own actions, they may be proportionately
liable): woman contracted HIV, gave birth. Knowing such risks, the woman was
liable as she contributed by proceeding with the pregnancy. Principle:
(amplification of risk): a person who amplifies a risk after it has become known to
them, breaks the chain of causation.
Cause in Law: (novus actus interveniens):
(important to look at the circumstances in between)
(4) Remoteness of Damage:
(the proximately close and not too remote
or indirect damage is considered)
Whether casual connection exists between the defendants action and the claimants injury.
When an intervening 3rd party action breaks the chain of causation, that new action
subsumes the liability from the originating cause.


Lamb v London Borough (EWCA): (causation failed) council works caused water
mains to be burst, causing subsidence to house. Whilst unoccupied, squatters
moved in and damaged the premises. chain of causation broken due to third party
intervening. Though it was foreseeable that squatters could trespass as a result of
the councils negligent action, the squatters outrageous conduct broke the chain of
causation. Principle: (3rd party interference): an intervening 3rd party may break
the chain of causation where their conduct is so capricious that consequences
cannot be readily foreseen.
McKew v Holland (HL): employee fractured leg at work. In recovery he walked
down stairs unaided when he felt his leg give way and jumped to the bottom. He
sustained permanent injury. The employer was responsible for the initial injury but
TEST = is the damage the kind of damage that a reasonable person would have foreseen:
(was the type of damage foreseeable)
 This is where you look at how far the legal responsibility of damages should be
attributed to the defendant. So long as the damage is traceable to the defendants
negligent act, you are liable.
The range of damage: the range of close proximity extends as far as such losses may be
foreseeably expected to touch upon.

Wagon Mound No 2: this case establishes that if damage is foreseeable, it is not
too remote. A foreseeable risk is a real risk that a reasonable person would not
brush aside. If you choose to run the risk of the act then there is remoteness, if the
risk is not foreseeable, you are too remove and the negligence test fails.
Torts Exam Preparation
(burden of proof is always on the defendant.)


Taupo Borough Council v Birnie: (pure economic loss) council works caused
flooding to hotel resulting in physical damage and loss of business – diminished
reputation. The council were liable as consequential economic loss was readily
foreseeable and proximate result of damages caused. The losses contributed
directly to financial decline. A claimant is entitled to remuneration of profit loss
where such losses are a foreseeably proximate result of the negligent act.
AG v Geothermal Produce NZ Ltd 1987 (CA): (extent of damages): (should the
defendant have been aware of potentially future business): weed control
contractors hired and decimated crop. The Crown was vicariously liable as they
were aware of the greenhouse existing close to the spraying area. Negligent
conduct causes foreseeable loss of business (where such conduct is in physically
proximate range) garnishes retribution for business loss. A claimant may recoup
business losses sustained from affected mercantile goods as a foreseeably
proximate consequence of the negligent act.
o You could use this case to argue that a reasonable person would have
looked up weather patterns before spraying. Claimants had a clear market
plan for new business, therefore defendants negligent and liable for
future loss).
Contributory Negligence:
the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove; they have to show that the claimants did
not take reasonable care of themselves through causation and remoteness.
This is where the claimant would have foreseen the harm and contributed in some way.
Contributory Negligence Act 1947, s 3: this section provides that “where any person suffers
damage as the result partly of his own fault…the damages recoverable…shall be reduced to
such an extent that the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share
in the responsibility for the damage.”

Dairy Containers v NZI Bank [1995] 2 NZLR 30: (this case affirms contributory
negligence in NZ) 3 directors committed fraudulent activities causing detriment to
the company. The auditor failed his duty of care to responsibly act on this. The
auditor successfully raised a contributory negligence defence to mitigate his failed
duty of care. This reduced his accountability to 70% of the awarded costs. Where
employees inflict fraud upon their own company, an auditor is not fully liable for
revealing such fraud as their own employees had caused the damage.

Jones v Livox Quarries (QBD): quarry worker hitched a lift on traxcavtors the
towbar. A dumber truck negligently rear-ended him. Legs amputated. The quarry
worker was 20% responsible; the employer was 80% at fault. The claim succeeded
but the liable as he placed himself in foreseeable harm. principle: (reasonableness)
a person is liable under contributory negligence if they ought reasonably to have
foreseen that, not acting as reasonable/prudent person, they might hurt
themselves.
Hartley v Balemi (QBD): house was built incorrectly. This result in water ingress
when it rained causing damage. The owners did not do what an ordinary
reasonable person would do. They did not hire a surveyor for correct planning,
instead believing they could do it themselves. Principle: (self-negligence): a person
who does not do what an ordinary reasonable person would do, resulting in selfdetriment, may be liable in contributory negligence.
Eggshell Skull Rule:
A duty of care must consider the victims physical and mental states as they currently exist
and are assessed regardless of unforeseen latent vulnerabilities.
A victim of mental injury must always be able to show that he or she was put at foreseeable
risk of mental injury. If the plaintiff has an “egg-shell personality” then his or her mental
injury is unlikely to be reasonably foreseeable.

Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL): def caused car crash. The plaintiff suffered no
physical harm, but his previously held chronic fatigue syndrome resurfaced as a
direct cause. Principle: (psychological injury): a latent psychological vulnerability in
remission is a proximate condition that may resurface as a result of a negligent act.
(5) Defences:

Torts Exam Preparation
NOTE: (Age): there is no age in which a child is precluded from contributory negligence; the
elderly are not expected to act as younger persons. The standard of care is what would be
reasonably expected of a child of that age.
Volenti non fit injura
(assumption of risk):
(How the person assumed the risk yet proceeded to follow through)
Question to ask: Did they voluntarily assume the risk? (Tomlinson, dived into water when
there was a sign that said not to, thus he voluntarily assumed the risk)
No harm is done where a person assumes the risk voluntarily. This operates as a bar for
claims succeeding.

6. Vicarious/Shared Liability:
(joint and concurrent liability:
each tortfeasor is liable for the damage they have inflicted. Claimants cannot recover
more than their losses: unjust enrichment)
Employment relationships: an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed
by their employees in the course of employment.
1.


Nettleship v Weston (UKCA): learner driver crashed car, injuring his instructor. The
learner driver claimed she could not be held to the same standard as an
experienced driver. The learner drive was 50% responsible; the instructor was at
50% fault as he was in partial control of the vehicle therefore assumed a degree of
risk. The standard of care for a learner driver is no different than an experienced
driver. Instructors also voluntarily assume a standard of care.
Tomlinson v Congleton: (voluntary assumption of risk) quarry converted into
leisure area. Warning signs prohibiting swimming, rangers employed. A boy was
rendered quadriplegic after diving into the shallows. The council were not liable to
provide premises protection as they had taken adequate precautions to warn of
danger. The park was safe and there was an obvious risk. (res ipsa loquitur:
obvious). A premises used for social recreation is not rendered dangerous if
adequate precautions have been met to warn of potential risks on site.
Illegality:
(someone cannot benefit from their own illegality)
No claim in negligence if the negligent act or harm occurred whilst claimant participating in
illegal activities.
Ashton v Turner (QBD): claimant injured whilst driving away from committing a
burglary. Crashed causing injury to his passenger. This case establishes that the law
will not recognise a duty of care owed by a participant involved in a crime to
another.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Contracts OF service: (employee): a person who acts on the command of their
superiors (vicarious liability applies).
Contracts FOR service: (independent contractor): a person who engages
themselves to perform service and does so on their own account (vicarious liability
precluded/excluded).
Establishing vicarious liability:
Has a tort been committed?
What is the nature of relationship between tortfeasor/responsible person? (e.g.,
employer or contractor).
Does a connection between tort/relationship exist? (e.g., done whilst on work
shift).
Test to identify the Employee:
1. “Economic Reality Test”: consider the economic relationship: do they use their own
tools, hire their own help or take on a business risk? How are they being paid, are they
paying their own tax etc? If yes = independent contractor.

Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi (PC): skilled stone mason worked for a subcontractor
on a construction site, using their tools. He became injured in the course of
carrying out his work. It was held that the stone mason was an employee and
received a wage. He was not involved in investing in the work on site and had not
Torts Exam Preparation
used his own tools or hired his own helpers. A person who works for a
subcontractor may be an employee if they do not supply their own tools.

2. “Control Test”: a servant is a person subject to the command (how and when_ of their
master in which they shall do the master’s work. Some servants have a degree of initiative.



Steel Structures Ltd v Rangitiki County (CA): “The test in all circumstances is one
of the right to control not merely what is done, but how it is to be done.”
Yewens v Noakes (1880): “A servant is a person subject to the command of his
master as to the manner in which he shall do his work”.
(6) Remedies:
(aim is to place a party back to the position they would have been in had the tort not
taken place)
1. Compensatory Damages:
Restores the claimant back to the position had the tort not taken place, through monetary
awards: State what has been lost/damaged (e.g., loss of business)
 Put the claimant back into the same financial position that they were in before the
damage occurred.
2. Nominal Damages:
Small damages awarded to show the tortfeasor that their actions are wrong.
 This may be when damage occurred, but that damage has no value (e.g., damage
to reputation).
3. Exemplary (punitive) Damages:
The sole purpose is to punish the wrongdoing. The courts may award substantial damages
to punish an entity for knowingly participating in wrongdoing.
ACC:
Accident Compensation Act 2001:
s 3: “The purpose of this Act is to enhance the public good and reinforce the social
contract…by providing for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury…”
s 20: Cover for personal injury:
s 20(1)(a): did the event occur in New Zealand after 1 April 2002?
s 16: NZ meaning.
s 20(2)(a): personal injury by Accident.
s 25: accident defined in as “the application of force, resistance external to the body; sudden
movement to avoid a force; twisting movement.
s 28: work-related personal injury. This includes injury suffered while on break at the place
of employment, injury suffered travelling to and from work (if transport provided by
employer).
s 28(4): personal injury caused by a work-related gradual process, disease or injection.



Grimshaw v Ford Motor (US): awarded 2.4m in compensatory damages and 125m
in punitive damages due to the size of their company and the value they placed on
human life over their own financial situation.
Donselaar v Donselaar (CA): longstanding family dispute. a man trespassed onto
his brothers land. brother hit him over the head with a hammer. Man sued. The
case was dismissed as the man was the principle irritant as the trespasser.
Couch v AG (SC): prisoner on parole let go from the RSA, returned later and killed
3 people. The department owed a duty of care. For exemplary damages, the harm
must be a foreseeable consequence of persons actions.
Cases:
Queenstown Lakes v Palmer: This case provides that if relief is not covered under
the Act, an affected person may instead bring litigation proceedings under the
common law.
McDonald v ARCIC: (not a gradual process) (not covered by ACA) In this case, cover
was declined on the basis that the injury had ‘triggered’ his arthritis which existed
before the injury occurred. This established that an injury which relates to a preexisting or underlying condition will not be covered under the ACA.
Torts Exam Preparation






ACC v Ambros: (likelihood/proximity test): wife suffered a heart attacked and
passed away as a consequence of a complicated childbirth procedure. Husband
sued claiming medical error. Cover granted in the HC. COA declined cover applying
the likelihood test.
Calver: (can be a single event or series of events)
Knox v ARCIC: (personal injury caused by a work-related gradual process, disease
or infection) (3 part test – s 30(2)).
ACC v Monk: (treatment causing mental injury): This case established that an
ordinary consequence of treatment will not be covered. However, an unusual
consequence of treatment which may cause mental injury will be covered.
ACC v Toomey: (work-related mental injury) (employment vs volunteer work). This
case established that the courts can sometimes take a generous approach when
determining whether a person should be entitled to cover. A self-employed builder
assisted the fire service to rescue people trapped in a building following a
Christchurch earthquake. He feared he would not make it out alive.
Hornby v ACC:
4.




1.

Notes:
s 317(1): ACC operatives as a ‘legislative bar’ on bringing personal actions for
damages. A person is restricted from brining proceedings (independently of the
Act) for damages arising from personal injury covered by ACA.
Treatment injury:
Look to s 33:
‘Treatment’ defined in s 33: “giving of treatment, diagnosis, failure to provide treatment”
etc.
‘Treatment injury’ is defined in s 32:
1. a ‘personal injury’ (see definition in s 26, remember personal injury also includes
mental injury caused by physical injury).
2. Suffered by a person seeking/receiving treatment (as defined in s 33).
3. Caused by the treatment: it must be proved on the balance of probabilities, that
the treatment caused the injury (Ambros). (Adlam: failure to provide treatment:
must demonstrate a departure for appropriate standard.) (Relly: implications of a
delay in treatment).
2.
And not a necessary part of ordinary consequence of the treatment: ACC v Ng: ‘an
outcome that is outside the normal range of outcomes, something out of the
ordinary which occasions a measure of surprise’.
Disentitlements:
(ss 119-122)
s 119: for wilfully self-inflicted personal injuries and suicide.
s 120: a person convicted of murder cannot receive compensation in relation to
that death.
s 121: no entitlements are payable during any person in which the claimant is in
prison.
s 122: no entitlements are payable if the injury occurred in the course of
committing an offence (with a max term of two years).
Working through an ACL problem:
s 20(1)(a):The first step is to establish that the person has suffered a personal injury
in New Zealand on or after 1 April 2002. (NZ is defined in s 16: the scheme applies
to residents and non-residents however, non-resident only entitled to limited
benefits; not covered while on board (or embarking/disembarking) from
ship/aircraft/other conveyance while traveling to, around or from NZ: s 23).
NOTE: a person ordinarily resident in NZ may be covered for personal injury
suffered outside NZ: s 22.
The second step is to establish that the personal injury is of any of the kind
described in s 26(1)(a)-(e).
3.
Common Law Tort of Privacy
Hosking v Runting
Torts Exam Preparation
Trespass to the Person
Assault
Battery
False imprisonment