KEY PRINCIPLES OF
NEGLIGENCE
By Monika,
Max, Vanja,
Nicole
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.
KEY PRINCIPLES
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
DUT Y OF CARE
 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.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DUT Y OF CARE
 One example of when there is an exception to the duty of care is when
a per son 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 lef t the possession of the donor.
 Volunteers or people who do community work for a community
organisation cannot be held per sonally liable if they cause any damage
or harm to other s. Instead, the organisation may be held liable if the
worker was not af fected by drugs or alcohol.
 When a per son donates food for charitable purposes, they are
protected from legal liability if another per son is harmed due to
consuming the food – this is only if the food was safe to consume when
it lef t the donor’s possession.
 Volunteers are not able to be held per sonally liable if they cause an
injur y to another per son. 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.
BREACH OF A DUT Y OF CARE (STANDARD
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
CAUSATION
 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 suf fers from
certain shocks, like hearing a car accident no one will be
sued.
LOSS OR HARM
 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 suf fered a loss or harm, even if it is minor
 The loss or harm can be physical, mental or damage to
property.