The following material illustrates the process of outlining and test taking.
In using this material, you should first study the negligence outline in Part 1. The outline is not intended to be a thorough summary of the law in the area of negligence. It is to be used in conjunction with the sample exam and sample answer to show the principles talked about in this book.
After studying the outline, read the question. Next, attempt to outline an answer. Then compare your outline with the one in Part 3. Finally, try writing an answer. A sample answer is contained in Part 4.
Return to Top Test Yourself!
Part 1 - Sample Outline on Negligence
Return to Top Test Yourself!
Part 2 - Sample Exam4
The following example is meant to illustrate a typical question and suggest an approach on how you might outline the relevant issues and facts. Unless you have already taken torts, you probably won't immediately recognize why some of the facts are relevant. What's important to see here, however, is not the law, but to illustrate that once you know the law, you should note the relevant facts in order to spot the issues.
David is driving 25 MPH in 25 MPH zone down a four lane street where there are children playing. One nine-year-old child, Kevin, runs into the street chasing a soccer ball. David, without looking over his shoulder, swerves into the other lane to avoid Kevin and in the process he hits a car, driven by Peter, that was speeding past him in the left-hand lane going in the same direction.
Peter loses control of his car, hits a telephone pole and is seriously and permanently injured. The telephone pole, owned by the local phone company TeleCo, easily snaps into two pieces and hits Kevin, who is still in the street, knocking him unconscious and resulting in permanent injuries.
TeleCo never did any testing of its poles to establish how easily the poles broke. The only factor used in manufacturing the poles was cost. The poles were made of low quality trees and were not treated in any significant manner except for a coating of tar. No reinforcement was used on the poles.
What are the various liabilities and rights of the parties involved?
Return to Top Test Yourself!
Part 3 - Sample Outline to Answer
What follows is a sample outline to the problem discussed above. This outline has far more words in it than you would want to use in an actual exam. This detail just illustrates the framework of an answer to make it comprehensible to you. You would want to abbreviate words and otherwise use a lot of shortcuts in an actual exam in order to save time. Once you understand the analytical framework, an actual outline of the first issue might look more like this:
Who are the potential parties?
Peter, Kevin v. David
Kevin, David v. Peter
Kevin v. TeleCo
Return to Top Test Yourself!
Part 4 - The Written Answer
The injured individuals can seek damages based on a theory of negligence. I will examine the potential liability of each party in turn. The prima facie case for negligence is established by showing a duty of reasonable care, breach of the duty, actual and proximate cause and damage.
Peter v. David
Although David may have breached a duty in not looking when changing lanes, he has a defense in the emergency doctrine. To prove negligence, Peter has the burden to prove that David had a duty to drive more carefully. One theory would be that David should drive slower than the speed limit when kids were present. Evidence of breaking the law is automatically considered a breach of a duty, but not breaking the law doesn't necessarily establish that a breach didn't occur. All of the facts and circumstances must be considered. Since 25 MPH is a standard speed limit for residential areas where kids normally play, I don't think that David had a duty to drive slower.
David, however, probably breached a duty of care by not looking before he changed lanes. A reasonable and prudent person would naturally look before changing lanes. Here, however, David can claim two defenses. First, he can claim contributory negligence since Peter was speeding. (See below for an analysis of Peter's liability.) Second, David can claim the emergency doctrine. Since his swerving into the lane avoided an accident with Kevin, he was justified in making the split-second decision to swerve. I think that under the duty of reasonable care analysis, David acted with the care of an ordinary and prudent person under the circumstances of an emergency. Therefore, David will probably not be found negligent in regard to Peter's claim. Even if he is found negligent, David's liability is limited if Peter is found to be liable for contributory negligence.
Kevin v. David
As to Kevin's claim of negligence against David, it is arguable that David's action was the cause of the injury that occurred to Kevin. Under the "but-for" standard of review, if he hadn't swerved into the other lane, he would not have sent Peter's car crashing into the phone pole. However, Kevin's claim against David probably loses on the issue of proximate cause. Proximate cause limits the liability of David to those risks that were foreseeable. Here, I don't think that a telephone pole snapping in half and falling on top of a kid is a likely result from swerving into another lane in order to avoid the kid in the first place. It is as improbable a result as that in Palsgraf. David is probably not liable for negligence in regard to Kevin's injuries.
Kevin, David v. Peter
Both Kevin and David can state a claim against Peter for their damages as a result of Peter's negligence in driving over the speed limit. Peter is liable under the theory of negligence per se since he was over the speed limit. Breaking the law - such as posted speed limits - creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence and doesn't require further analysis. Peter can rebut the presumption of negligence by showing it was the custom to speed on that street; however, the fact that children were present would go to show that Peter had a duty of care to ignore the custom and slow down under those circumstances.
Peter can also argue contributory negligence against both David for swerving and Kevin for running into the street. While David was not judged to be negligent for, I don't think his claim for damages to his car will survive. Peter's claim of contributory negligence against David is valid since David had a duty to look before changing lanes. Although the emergency doctrine relieves David of liability, it does not confer liability on Peter. David, or his insurance company, will probably have to pay damages on David's car.
Kevin will be judged by the standard of what a reasonable and prudent nine year old would do when playing games in his own neighborhood. The neighborhood represents safety in Kevin's mind, thus an exuberant pre-teen might feel safe enough to run in the street. Even so, most kids are taught at an early age to look both ways before crossing the street. I think it is likely that Kevin, or his parents, will bear some responsibility for Kevin's injuries since he did not belong in the street.
Peter's strongest defense against Kevin's claim is to argue - as David did above - that the injuries arising form the telephone pole were not foreseeable and therefore the damage is too attenuated for Peter to be held liable. Here, it is less clear. The casual connection is closer than it was with David. I think that it is foreseeable that when someone is speeding they might lose control and damage would result from that loss of control. While the pole snapping was not foreseeable, the risk of some type of harm coming about was foreseeable. It is not necessary to show that a specific harm was foreseeable as it is that some harm was foreseeable. I think Peter will be liable for some measure of Kevin's damages.
Kevin v. TeleCo
Although it may not have been foreseeable for this accident to happen, I think that TeleCo is probably liable to Kevin for damages. Here, TeleCo was under a duty of reasonable care since it knew that its telephone poles would be placed along the sides of roads. It was foreseeable that a car might hit a pole with sufficient force as to knock the pole down. Since the poles are commonly placed in neighborhoods, it is reasonable to conclude that a pole might fall on someone.
Despite its duty to protect against potential harm, TeleCo did not do any testing to determine the danger involved in falling poles. Furthermore, it did nothing to mitigate the danger by seeking to reinforce the pole with metal strips, to sink poles deeper in the ground or buy a harder type of wood. The only factor that TeleCo thought was relevant was keeping its costs down. Consequently, I think that TeleCo's failure to seek alternatives was a breach of its duty of care.
Under a causation analysis, the breach was both a direct and proximate cause of Kevin's injuries. But-for TeleCo's breach, Kevin's injuries would not have occurred. Furthermore, it is foreseeable in a car accident where a pole falls, that an innocent bystander will get hurt. Since Kevin has shown damages, I think that TeleCo will probably be found negligent and liable for damages.
Return to Top Test Yourself!
(A) The Parties: (1.5 marks) (i) What are the names of the parties? There are totally three parties in this case. They are Mileva Novakovic, Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovi. (ii) Who is the ‘appellant’? Who is the ‘respondent’? The appellant is Mileva Novakovic while the first and second respondent are Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic respectively. (iii) Please explain why the parties are not referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendant’? Because this is an appeal case. Plaintiff and defendant would only be used in original case.1 However, the party who did not satisfied with the decision and appeal it, they would become appellant and the other party would be respondent. (B) The Court: (1.5 marks) (i) What is the name of the court? The name of the court is New South Wales Court of Appeal. (ii) In which jurisdiction does this court operate? New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSWCA) is part of the Supreme Court in New South Wales. Under the appeal structure of Australia, NSWCA is to hear appeal from a court lower in hierarchy. 1 st Latimer P Australian Business Law, 31 ed, 2012, CCH Australia at 48 (iii) If a party loses the case in this court, to which court may they seek to appeal? They may seek High Court of Australia to appeal, which is the highest level of court in Australia. (C) The Case: (12 marks) (i) What happened in this case? (1 mark) The respondents owned a large trained hunting dog and the appellant already knew it. It was kept in backyard every time when the appellant visited. However, the appellant visited the respondents’ house on 19 June 2008 and found that the dog was located at the lounge room when she entered the house. Because of her fear to dog, she ran away when the dog got up. As she moving quickly and lost her balance, she fell. This accident caused a significant injury and the appellant could not work for over six months after a surgery. Therefore the appellant claimed damage. The primary judge decided that the risk was not foreseeable so the respondent did not owed duty of care to the appellant. However, the appellant argues that the risk was foreseeable and reasonable, so she appealed the case to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. (ii) What was the decision in the case? (1 mark) The judges, McColl, Whealy and Tobias, found that there is no error in the primary judgment and decided to dismiss the appeal with because the respondent did not breach the duty of care. (iii) Identify and explain the main legal issue (or issues) of the case in your own words. (10 marks) This case is related to tort of negligence, which existed after Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932. 2“Negligence” means failure to take reasonable care.3 The main legal issue of the case is whether the respondent breached a duty of care to the appellant. The judges analyzed the scope of 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and relevant case laws to determine whether the respondents breached the duty of care by judging the foreseeability and significant of the risk .4 Firstly, the appellant argued that the risk ought to be known by the respondent because the dog is a dangerous dog trained to hunt. 5Therefore, the appellant claimed that the risk was foreseeable and the primary judge made an error. On the other hand, the respondent disagreed that the risk could be foreseeable. They contended that the dog was trained and had control over it.6 Also there was not enough evidence to support that the appellant had a morbid fear of dogs.7 Thus, the respondent contended that they could not foresee the risk, so did not own the appellant a duty of care. In the case, the judges defined the process of deciding whether duty of care exited. First, the judges would proceed to the question of what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstance if the risk was foreseeable and not insignificant. 8 In order to consider the foreseeability of the risk, the judges did not accept that the dog did nothing but characterized as aggressive with reference to Shaw v Thomas 2010 (NSWCA). 9Furthermore, the respondents were prepared and ready for the incoming of the appellant and other visitors when the dog was in Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL 100 Wrongs Act 1958 (VIC) s 43 4 Section 5B (1)(a)(b), Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) 5 Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 p. 30 6 Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 p. 35 7 Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 p. 34 8 Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 p. 43 9 Shaw v Thomas  NSWCA 169; (2010) ATR 82-065 at 40 as cited in Novakovic v Stekovic (2012) NSWCA 54 p.46 2 3 the lounge room.10 Thus, the judges also thought that the dog was assumed that it would not pose any risk to entrants. As a result, the respondents were not reasonably foreseeing the risk. Therefore, section 5B (1)(a) was not satisfied and not necessarily to proceed to (c) and the judges decided that the respondents did not breach their duty of care. Also, the second respondent mentioned that she was ready to take the dog beck to the backyard at anytime. Therefore the judges referred to Thornton v Sweeney 2011 NSWCA that respondent did not breach the duty of care if there are steps that they could take to avoid the risk. 11 In conclusion, the judges referred to relevant negligence case law to explain that there is not a breach of duty. The reason is that the risk was not reasonably foreseeable by the respondents, which cannot satisfy 5B(1)(b) of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). 10 Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 p. 46 Thornton v Sweeney  NSWCA 244; (2011) 59 MVR 155 at 131 cited in Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 P.42 11 Bibliography Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) at section 5B Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL 100 st Latimer P Australian Business Law, 31 ed, 2012, CCH Australia at 48 Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 Shaw v Thomas  NSWCA 169; (2010) ATR 82-065 at 40 as cited in Novakovic v Stekovic (2012) NSWCA 54 p.46 Thornton v Sweeney  NSWCA 244; (2011) 59 MVR 155 at 131 cited in Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54 P.42 Wrongs Act 1958 (VIC) s 43