How to Answer legal Questions – IRAC
1. Issue 1. – Does D Owe Duty of Care to P?
a. The Main Test – (Under Common Law):
Was it Reasonably Foreseeable by the Defendant that his conduct could harm someone in the Plaintiff’s Position?
Case Authority – Donaghue v Stevenson;
Case Authority – Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
b. The Secondary Test – (Under Common Law):
Was the Plaintiff in a ‘Vulnerable Position and under the Defendant’s Control?
c. Under Statute – ‘Occupiers Liability Act (Vic)…
Occupier’s Liability – applies to anyone occupying land as owner or tenant..
– Occupiers of land have the same level of care to different classes of entrants.
– Occupiers Must avoid reasonably foreseeable risk of injury to all entrants (including trespassers).
– Hacksaw v Shaw, p 103;
– Australian Safeways Stores v Zaluzna (1986), p 103.
3. Application – Rule to the Facts –
a. In this case….the Plaintiff (Bruce) can show it was reasonably foreseeable that defendant’s (Classic and Michael’s) conduct could harm someone in plaintiff’s (Bruce’s) position as a Visitor.
b. Vulnerability and Control…. In this case…. the Plaintiff (Bruce) was in control…and Bruce was vulnerable
c. Under Occ.Liab.Act –D owes P duty of care
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!