Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

March v Stramare

No description
by

Cathy Chou

on 21 May 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of March v Stramare

March v Stramare
Issue
The Defendant(Stramare) alleges that it was the
negligent driving
of the Plaintiff(March) which was the cause of his harm,
and not the Defendant's
negligence in parking the truck
.
Conclusion
The respondent was imposed the common law duty since the high court of Australia wanted to protect motorists from the very risk of injury that befell the appellant. In this circumstance, the negligence of the defendant was a continuing cause of the accident.
Facts
Peng Zhijian(
Steven
) 430023763
Zhou Xi(
Cathy
) 430544224

Application & Ratio
duty of care
breach of duty
"but for" Test
Stramare
March
Thank you ~
Question ?
1985.3.15 1:00 am
Frome St, Adelaide
March:
physical damages
Stramare:
truck damages
Negligence
negligent driving
negligent parking
Defendant has a duty of care to take positive action
Plaintiff's negligent conduct created a situation of danger
Defendant’s negligence satisfies the “but for” test.
The respondent should take a large proportion of responsibility.
Be careful in driving & parking!
Causation

?
Full transcript