COMMERCIAL LAW

Assessment Task 2 – Team Paper

Lecturer: Mr. Hoe Loh

Students Names and Student IDS:

Ly Anh Tuan – s3818425
Tran Nam Anh- s3802194
Nguyen Trung Duc – s3652954

Words Count: 3933 words (excluding titles,

footnotes and bibliography)
Introduction
The assignment analyses four scenarios using the IRAC guide. Specifically, there are four
parts in each scenario: legal issues, legal rules, application, and conclusion

Scenario 1

Issues

Major legal issues:

(1) whether Charles committed a tort of negligence to Sarah Summer when he changed
direction abruptly and collided with the wooden playhouse, causing her broken arm?

(2) whether Free committed a tort of negligence to Charles when he did not follow the traffic
rules & signs, leading to Charles's broken arm and the damage to his car?

Minor issues:

(3) whether Fresh Fruit was vicariously liable to the Summers.

Legal rules

The rule of the tort of negligence can be defined as a person commits the tort of negligence if
that individual's rackless conduct results in harm to another. Three requirements must be
established to justify tort of negligence: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a DOC, (2) the
defendant breached this DOC, and (3) the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff to suffer
harm.

Firstly, to justify DOC, it is crucial to illustrate whether the relationship between the plaintiff
and the defendant is part of established categories DOC. In this scenario, Imbree v McMeilly
1
is applied, indicating that motorists are required to take sensible care to guarantee any action
they take or any action they fail to make, does not negatively affect another road user, or
damage to property. If not, the neighbor test is concerned to recognize if the defendant's

1
Imbree v McNeilly [2008] 236 CLR 510. 
conduct is predicted to cause harm to another, and if this act creates a close and direct impact
on the plaintiff (Donoghue v Stevenson2)

Furthermore, to evaluate the breach of DOC, when defendants were unable to do what a
person would have done in similar situations, they breached their DOC. Four components
have to be inspected: probability of harm (Bolton v Stone 3), likely seriousness of injury
(Paris v Stepney Borough Council 4), cost of precaution (Latimer v AEC 5), and social utility
(Watt v Hertfordshire County Council 6).

In this case, the plaintiff's damages created by the defendant's act was reasonably predictable.

According to the rule of defence, even if all three factors of the tort of negligence have been
established, the defendant can still escape from liability, either fully or partially, by using
voluntary assumption of risk (Insurance Commissioner v Joyce 7), or contributory negligence
(Ingram v Britten8).

The rule of vicarious liability is applied as it usually happens within the employer-employee
and parent-child relationship. By Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport
Board9, an employer will be held vicariously liable if the employee's act was considered
harmful and occured in the scope of employment

Application

Issue 1: Charles v the Summers

- DOC:

The relationship between Charles and Sarah Summers does not fall within any established
DOC relationships; therefore, the neighbor test (Donoghue v Stevenson) (cited above) is
applied. Regarding the accident, it is sensible that driving at high speed and making abrupt
changes could cause severe damage to any person on its way. Furthermore, Sarah Summer

2
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
3
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
4
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367
5
Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
6
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835.
7
Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948] HCA 17; 77 CLR 39
8
Ingram v Britten [1994] Aust Torts Reports 81-291.
9
Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509
was closely and instantly affected by Charles' s conduct. Consequently, Charles owed Sarah
Summers a DOC

-Breach of DOC:

The probability of harm is moderate because although the structure is relatively close to the
highway and people can suffer critical injuries from the collision, Charles attempted to apply
the brakes and somewhat reduce the probability of having casualties. According to The Daily
Californian, it is likely for victims of traffic accidents to experience physical injuries,
including neck pain, head injuries and knee trauma, and psychological injuries such as anger,
stress, anxiety, or even more severe insomnia 10. In most cases, there will be casualties, so the
seriousness of harm is high. The burden of taking precautions is minimal, since Charles could
simply maintained his vehicle speed to the point lower than the speed limit to comply with
the traffic signs. No social utility existed in this circumstance. The defendant caused the
claimant to suffer injuries that were reasonably predicted.

-Conclusion:

To conclude, Sarah Summers can sue Charles for commiting the tort of negligence.

Issue 2: Whether Fresh Fruit was vicariously liable for Charles

Charles is a truck driver working for Fresh Fruit, a product company; therefore, their
relationship is an employer-employee relationship. Furthermore, it has been clarified that
Charles had committed a tort of negligence to Sarah Summers. However, there is no evidence
mentioning that Charles was performing an authorized task such as delivering goods or was
in the process of doing it, and the date of the incident was on Saturday, December 14, 2019,
which is not likely to be a workday. Consequently, it can be presumed that Charles was
acting outside the scope of employment, so Fresh Fruit was not vicariously liable for
Charles's act.

Issue 3: Free v Charles

-DOC (DOC):

Free was driving a sports car in the lane beside Charles, a truck driver, so their relationship is
part of the established categories of DOC (Imbree v McNeilly) (cited above), specifically
10
TheDailyCalifornian 2019, What are the aftereffects of a car accident? TheDailyCalifornian, viewed 6
August 2020, <https://www.dailycal.org/2019/02/15/what-are-the-aftereffects-of-a-car-accident/>
motorist and road user relationships. Due to established DOC, Mr. Free owed a DOC to Mr.
Charles.

-Breach of DOC:

Free, a motorist, had violated traffic rules when he crossed the speed limit and switched to
Charles's lane while he signaled only for a brief moment, so Charles was unable to react
accordingly to Free's driving decision; hence, the probability of harm occurred is subtantial.
In this case, the consequence of the injury is significant, as the conduct has resulted in
Charles's broken arm, the havoc to his car, and possibly his inability to work for a few
months as a truck driver. However, the cost of taking precautions is low, considering that
Free should be driving below the speed limit as well as staying at his previous lane to avoid
the chain of incidents he created. The act was not useful for the society. The defendant caused
the plaintiff to suffer damage, which was sensibly forecasted.

-Defences

Free could pursue a partial defence by showing Charles, to some extent, contributed to his
own loss/injury. Based on the accident, Charles also started to speed up above the speed limit
and probably make an inappropriate decision when he assumed his truck was about to collide
with Free's car. Consequently, the plaintiff had also been negligent. Under Ingram v Britten
(cited above), Mr. Free can partly avoid his liability with the defence of contributory
negligence.

-Conclusion

Although all three elements of tort of negligence were satisfied in favor of Charles and he can
sue Free for the tort of negligence, the court may decide to apportion the liability.

Scenario 2

Issue
Major issues:

(1) Whether Woolworths committed a tort of negligence to Ryder because of not ensuring
safety for her on the way to the supermarket?
(2) Whether the little girl committed a tort of negligence to Ryder as she blew bubbles that
dropped substances at the spot where Ryder fell?

(3) Whether Robert committed a tort of negligence to Ryder when trying to help her but made
her left arm broken?

Minor issues:

(4) Whether the little girl's parents were vicariously liable?

(5) Did Tom commit a tort of negligence to Ryder because of helping the girl open the bottle,
later leading to the spillage of the substances?

(6) Whether Woolworth was vicariously liable?

Rules
The first legal rule used is the tort of negligence (Donoghue v Stevenson) (cited above
11
scenario 1). In this case, Australian Safety Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna is applied, which
indicates that occupiers owe a DOC to people going to their premises.

The rule of Good Samaritan (Wrong Act 1985, section VIA)12 is used to provide legal
protection to individuals who voluntarily give generous support to strangers who are injured
or ill or who they believe to be damaged or sick. Good Samaritan prevents rescuers from civil
liability that may occur from being negligent while helping the victim.

The rule of vicarious liability is used in this scenario (cite above scenario1).

Application

Issue 1: Woolworths market vs. Tracey Ryder

Woolworths and Ryder relationship failed in failing in the occupier and guest relationship
(Australian Safety Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna) (cited above). Despite the footage that Ryder
was going into the supermarket, she slipped on the ground near Woolworths' premises.

11
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 at 488.
12

Wrong Act 1985 (Parliament of Victoria), section VIA

 Still, it was in the common area which is utilized by both Westfield Shopping Centre and
Woolworths, so the defendant had no absolute control over the area, making it cannot be the
"occupier." Also, there is no contractual rights or obligation related to Woolworth,
mentioning they had to clean the area. The injuries the plaintiff suffered were on the common
premises outside the supermarket premise.

Hence, Woolworths did not owe Ryder a DOC.

Issue 2: The little girl vs. Ryder

- DOC

The relationship between the little girl and Ryder is not in any established categories of DOC,
so "neighbour test" (Donoghue v Stevenson) (cited above) is implemented. A young child is
not fully aware of its actions and consequences, referring to McHale v Watson 13. In this case,
the little girl did not foresee that blowing bubbles could lead to the drop in substances,
therefore accidentally making Ms. Ryder suffer severe injury. Ms. Ryder was the "neighbor"
because of being closely and directly affected by the girl's actions due to her damages. In this
case, the lower standard of care is applied, as the defendant's status is a minor. The girl's
conduct was not intentionally created to hurt the defendant, and a "reasonable "girl could not
expect this outcome of her behavior. Therefore, "neighbour test "was not applied as to the
dissatisfaction of the first requirement,

- Conclusion

The little girl did not commit a tort of negligence to Ryder.

Issue 3: Robert vs. Tracey Ryder

-DOC

The relationship between Robert and Ryder is not in any established categories of DOC, so
the neighbour test (Donoghue v Stevenson) (cited above) is implemented. Robert's act was
not potentially harmful because he tried to assist Ryder by lifting her. Hence, the "neighbour
test" is not satisfied due to the dissatisfaction of the first element. Thus, Robert did not owe a
DOC to Ryder.
13
McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199
Although Robert's conduct led to Ryder's broken arm, he voluntarily helped her. Applied the
rule Good Samaritan, Robert is immune from civil liability since he gave her assistance.
Also, there is no evidence showing that his act was reckless, or he was intoxicated or caused
the injury in the first place.

- Conclusion

In this case, Ryder cannot sue Robert for a tort of negligence because he did not owe her a
DOC

Issue 4: Whether the young girl's parents were vicariously liable

There was CCTV footage demonstrating that she acted in the scope of her parents; however,
they were not vicariously responsible for their child's actions as it was proved she did not
commit a tort of negligence.

Issue 5: Tom v Ryder

The "neighbour test" (Donoghue v Stevenson) (cited above) is applied as the relationship
between Tom and Ryder is not in any established DOC categories. Tom's act was concerned
not potentially harmful because, as an employee, he has to assist the customer, so opening the
bottle for the girl is a normal action, and he could not predict that this could lead to severe
damages to Ryder. Moreover, Ryder was directly affected by the little girl, not Tom.
Consequently, the test was not satisfied.

Conclusion

Ryder cannot sue Tom for the tort of negligence because of not owning a DOC.

Issue 6: Whether Woolworths was vicariously liable

Tom is the employee of Woolworths, so the relationship between him and Woolworths is an
employer-employee relationship. However, there is no existence of tort from Tom's position,
meaning Woolworths is not vicariously liable for Tom.
Scenario 3

Issue

Major issues:
(1) Whether the shop owners committed a tort of negligence to Ms.Vo due to causing the
injuries of Hoa happened in their premises?

(2) Whether Ms. Hoa committed a tort of negligence to Ms.Vo when she left the ground
watery, making Vo slip prior to her severe damages?

(3) Whether Ben committed a tort of negligence to Ms.Vo because of not supervising the
machine at the time of the incident, hence resulting in the crush of her arm?

Subordinate issues:
(4) Whether Mr.Hung is vicariously liable for Ben's act and Hoa's act that damaged the
customer?

Rule

In this scenario, the rule of the tort of negligence, rule of vicarious liability and rule of
defence is applied (cited above scenario 1)

Application

Issue 1: The owners v Ms.Vo

The Thu Phung desserts' owners and Ms.Vo's relationship in this scenario is the occupier and
guests relationship, which is in the established DOC relationship ( Australian Safety Stores
Pty Ltd v Zaluzna) (cited above scenario 2). Although Ms.Vo is a casual employee, on
October 13, 2018, she represents the guest of the store as this is not her workday, guest, and
she went to have a drink with her peer. The owners of the store represent the occupiers due to
the exclusive control over the shop. Regarding the established DOC, the owners owed a DOC
to Ms.Vo.
- Breach DOC
The probability of harm happening is medium since the owners do not manage to ensure that
their staff can provide safety to the purchasers, leading to the issue that Ms.Hoa fell. The
likelihood of harm is significant, as it could result in severe damage like Ms.Hoa's left arm.
The cost of taking precautions is low, the owners could require employees to do their tasks by
themselves, and if they need assistance, they should ask for their colleagues instead of the
customers. Also, it costs nothing for the employees to simply turn off the machine when they
cannot supervise. The act was not helpful for the community. The defendant caused the
claimant to suffer loss, which was somewhat expected.
- Conclusion
The claimant can sue the defendant for a tort of negligence as all the requirements were
satisfied.
Issue 2: Ms.Hoa v Ms.Vo
● DOC
The relationship between Ms.Vo and Ms.Hoa does not fall in any established DOC
relationships, so the "neighbour test" is applied. Based on the accident, it is reasonable that
leaving the floor wet is expected to be harmful since people can suffer injuries from a fall.
Also, Ms. Vo was directly and intimately affected by Ms.Hoa's act. Thus, Ms.Hoa owed
Ms.Vo a DOC.
● Breach of DOC
In terms of the probability of harm, any individual can suffer an injury from falling on
slippery ground, leading to a significant likelihood. According to the CDC, in 2014, slipping
is capable of resulting in severe damages like broken bones or head injuries, or this case led
to the later severe damages14. Therefore, the seriousness of harm is high. The burden of
taking precautions is low, considering Ms.Hoa just has to clean the floor to make sure no
customers slip. There is no social utility in this case. The plaintiff's damages created by the
defendant was reasonably foreseeable
● Defence
Ms. Hoa could decrease liability by making a defence that Ms.Vo was voluntarily assumed of
the risk. According to the scenario, Ms.Hoa asked Ms.Vo for help in wiping the wet area, and
there is no evidence showing that she has a disability or difficulty in hearing, so she must

14
Centers for disease control and prevention 2017, 'Important Facts about Falls', CDC, 10 February,
viewed 10 August 2020, <https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/falls/adultfalls.html>.
have known. However, Ms.Vo still voluntarily walked into that area, contributing to her later
injury. According to Insurance Commissioner v Joyce, Ms.Hoa can entirely escape her
liability due to the establishment of the defense.
● Conclusion
Ms.Vo will fail if she sues Ms.Hoa for committing a tort of negligence as the defendant can
decrease all of its liability.

Issue 3: Mr. Ben v Ms. Vo

-DOC:
As the relationship between Mr. Ben and Ms. Vo does not belong to any established
categories of DOC, the "neighbor test" is examined. Specifically, a series of events resulting
in Ms.Vo's incident was not sensibly predictable, when the accident occurred, Mr.Ben was
not supervising the machine for only two minutes, which is a fairly short amount of time.
Also, a reasonable person would not approach a machine with moving parts unless
an unexpected element existed, which is the slip of Ms.Vo. Although Ben's conduct has a
close and direct impact on Ms.Vo by letting the machine crush her left hand, the first element
is not satisfied; therefore, Mr.Ben did not owe Ms.Vo a DOC.

Consequently, it is not required to evaluate the breach of DOC as the defendant did not owe
the claimant a DOC.
-Conclusion
Mr. Vo can unsuccessfully sue Mr. Ben for committing a tort of negligence because Mr.Ben
did not owe Ms.Vo a DOC.

Issue 4: Whether Mr.Hung was vicariously liable for Ben and Hoa's conduct
Ms.Hoa and Mr.Ben are the employees of Mr.Hung, so both of their relationships are in the
employer-employee relationship. Because Ms.Hoa had been negligent when not cleaning the
wet floor, which resulted in the damage for Ms.Vo, so, she had committed a tort of
negligence. She is an employee, meaning she had to clean the area instead of asking Ms.Vo,
who was a customer that day, to assist her. It is reasonable that her conduct was within the
scope of Ms. Hung's employment because she was doing her work in an inappropriate
manner. Regarding Mr. Ben's act, it has been proved that Mr.Ben did not commit a tort of
negligence to Mr.Vo. As a result, Mr. Hung was only vicariously liable for Hoa's conduct.
Scenario 4

Issue
Major issues:
1. Jamala Turner v Gary Grice

Plaintiff: Jamala Turner

Defendant: Gary Grice

Whether the contract between Jamala and Gary is still enforceable when Gary sent an email
accepting Jamala's offer, but on the next day, Jamala called to revoke before receiving his
email.

2. Jamala Turner v the Russell Jones' Flipped Properties

Plaintiff: Jamala Turner

Defendant: the Russell Jones' Flipped Properties

Whether the contract between Jamala and The Russell is valid when she mocked about
accepting the company and did not intentionally want to sell her apartment?

Minor issue :

3.Whether the Russel can sue Jamala for the contract’s negation?

RULES
The court must determine whether there is a contractual offer, legal acceptance that is legally
communicated between the plaintiff and the defendant, based on the rules of offer and the
rules of acceptance. Therefore, the court must justify whether there is an agreement that
implies a legally binding relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Rule of offer

According to Harvey v. Facey [1893]15, an offer must be distinguished from any source of
information or an invitation to treat16. The rules of offer imply:

15
Harvey v. Facey [1893] AC 552

16
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401
a) The offer must be clear and complete17.

b) Offers may be revoked (withdrawn) by the offeror any time before acceptance18

c) Offers must be communicated; otherwise, it is not legally valid19.

2. Rules of acceptance

According to Crown v Clark (1927)20, the offeree's response is considered accepted as he/she
willingly enters an enforceable contract with the offeror on the terms offered. The rules of
acceptance stated a valid acceptance as:

a) The acceptance must be 100% identical to the offer: the "mirror image rule."21

b) A valid acceptance must be unconditional22.

c) Like the offer, the acceptance must be clear and precise23.

d) The offeror can require a specific method of acceptance24. Offeree needs to meet the
offeror's requirements.

e) Acceptance must be communicated25.

3. The law requires that the consideration:

a) It must be sufficient26

17
Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd [2006] VSC 42

18
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463

19
R v Clarke [1927] (1927) 40 CLR 227

20
Crown v Clark (1927) 40 CLR 227

21
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132.

22
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353.

23
Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] 1 AC 251
24

Eliason v Henshaw (1819), 4 Wheaton 225

25
Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 107

26
Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130
b) It cannot be a vague promise 27.

4. Moreover, to be a legally enforceable contract, parties must intend to create legal relations.
The court looks at the nature of the agreement as there are two types of agreement:

c) Domestic or social agreements: Presumed that parties do not intend to create legal
relations unless it is evident that parties intend to create legal relations 28.

d) Business agreements: Presumed that those parties intend to create legal relations unless it
was obvious that parties do not intend to create legal relations 29.

A misrepresentation, which is a negligent misrepresentation needs to be looked at to

determine if there is a negation. A defendant can be reckless when claiming to the
complainant30. To establish a misrepresentation, the following elements should be concerned:

a) The representor is in a special role to provide information or advice to the representee

b) The representor is aware or should be aware that the information is sought for a serious
reason.

c) The representor realizes the representee intends to base on the information, and the
representee does in fact base on it.

d) It was reasonable for the representee, in the situation, to count on the information.

e) The information is incorrect and the representee suffers harm by relying on it.

APPLICATION
1. Jamala Turner v Gary Grice

First, the plaintiff emailed the defendant "an agreement of sale" that included all the
apartment information (address, condition, description, sale price, and closing costs). They

27
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex36

28
Wakeling v. Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183

29
Rose & Frank Co v. JR [1924] UKHL 2

30
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
satisfied the precise and complete requirements (a,c). Significantly, the plaintiff disclosed the
expiration provision (January 19, 2017) and the acceptance method (mail). Therefore, there is
a valid offer created by the plaintiff.

The defendant managed to respond to the plaintiff in time on January 10 and correctly by
mail (d, e). The acceptance is clearly stated - "I accept your offer" (c). Although he also
proposed to the plaintiff to include the furniture, he did not violate the "mirror image rule" (a)
because it is not a condition of acceptance (b), but a proposal that the plaintiff can refuse. By
the postal rule, his acceptance was valid immediately as he sent it. Therefore, there is a valid
acceptance created by the defendant.

According to the Dickinson v Dodds (1876), despite Jamala spoke to revoke the offer after
the acceptance was sent, the agreement between them is still valid.

2. Jamala Turner v the Russell Jones' Flipped Properties

Firstly, the defendant left the plaintiff a voice message clearly indicating information about
the sale price ($450,000); however, the "a significant discount on your next home" and "total
savings far exceed" can be considered as vague descriptions of consideration (Consideration
requirement - b). Therefore, according to the rule of an offer, the elements of offer from the
defendant made the offer invalid.

Secondly, the plaintiff left another voice message to the defendant starting with a quite
determining "Yes, of course" but her acceptance went on with many sarcastic statements that
implied her disagreement, such as: "less than current offer," "a club that tears down perfectly
beautiful homes," "club to make cheap, cost-cutting renovations." These phrases clearly
express her disgust against the defendant's offer (c). Moreover, the plaintiff asked the
defendant to hire young people, bring a cheque to proceed with the deal. Her acceptance is
conditional to the defendant (b). Thus, acceptance is not valid, according to the rule of
acceptance.

The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is client-business that is assumed to
be intended to create a legal relationship. However, by interpreting the responses, the plaintiff
did not intentionally want to enter a legal relationship with the defendant, so there is no
existence of intention.

3. Misrepresentation
In this situation, looking at the element (d),it is not reasonable for the company to depend on
the conditions ( bring young men and a cheque) since looking at the way she talked, it is clear
how ironical she was. Thus, the company must have known there was no intention between
them. As one of the elements was not satisfied, there is no misrepresentation.

CONCLUSION

1. Jamala Turner v Gary Grice

Jamala and Gary are legally forced under a legally binding relationship by agreeing to the
apartment selling contact.

2. Jamala Turner v the Russell Jones' Flipped Properties

There is no legal agreement or legal binding relationship between Jamala and the Russell

3. Negating contract

The Russel Jones’s Flipped Properties cannot sue Jamala for negating a contract because of
no existence of mispresentation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the paper had identified all the issues with the IRAC guide. The issues with a
high probability of success contain Charles v Sarah Summer for scenario 1, Mr.Hung v
Ms.Hoa and Jamala v the Russel Jones' Flipped properties for scenario 4. The issues which
have lower chances involve: Charles v Free and Fresh Fruit in scenario 1; all cases in
scenario 2, and Ms.Hoa v Ms.Vo, Ben v Ms.Vo, Mr.Hung v Ben in scenario 3; lastly is
Jamala v Gary Grice , Jamala’s misrepsentation in scenario 4.

Bibliography
A. Cases

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 at 488.

Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850

Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509

Crown v Clark (1927) 40 CLR 227

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Eliason v Henshaw (1819), 4 Wheaton 225

Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 142 ER 107

Harvey v. Facey [1893] AC 552

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465

Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132.

Imbree v McNeilly [2008] 236 CLR 510. 

Ingram v Britten [1994] Aust Torts Reports 81-291.

Insurance Commissioner v Joyce [1948] HCA 17; 77 CLR 39

Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643

Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353.

McHale v Watson (1966) 115 CLR 199

Mildura Office Equipment & Supplies Pty Ltd v Canon Finance Australia Ltd [2006] VSC 42

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401

R v Clarke [1927] (1927) 40 CLR 227

Rose & Frank Co v. JR [1924] UKHL 2

Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] 1 AC 251

Wakeling v. Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835.

White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex36

B. Legislations

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 43(2)

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B(2)

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 9(2)

Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 32(2)

Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) s 11(2)

Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 48(2)

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5B(2)

Reference
Centers for disease control and prevention 2017, 'Important Facts about Falls', CDC, February 10,
viewed August 10 2020, <https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/falls/adultfalls.html>

The Daily Californian 2019, What are the aftereffects of a car accident? TheDailyCalifornian, viewed
6 August 2020, <https://www.dailycal.org/2019/02/15/what-are-the-aftereffects-of-a-car-accident/>