Skip to content

Duty and foreseeability March 17, 2016

Vincent v Woolworths Ltd [2016] NSWCA 40

Macfarlan JA

28 In considering whether a duty of care existed, it is appropriate to consider reasonable foreseeability, a concept fundamental to the existence of a duty of care, at “a higher level of abstraction” than at the subsequent stages of breach of duty and remoteness of damage (Sydney Water Corporation v Turano [2009] HCA 42; 239 CLR 51 at [45]). The duty for which Woolworths contends suffers from undue specificity and, by referring to the precise manner in which the accident occurred, draws on hindsight. This is impermissible in considering duty, as well as breach (as to the latter see Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; 234 CLR 330 at [65]).

Related Articles:

MACA Claims Assessors: concise reasons

The meaning of words

Commercial claims in the District Court: jurisdiction?

Appellate review of an award of non-economic loss

Search

Categories

Tags

Social Media

Subscribe to the weekly newsletter

Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid email address.
Something went wrong. Please check your entries and try again.
Scroll To Top