|
|
此文章由 luyili 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 luyili 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
Generally, the question of whether a person owes another a duty of care to avoid a risk of
harm will depend upon whether the risk of harm was ‘reasonably foreseeable’. The Civil
Liability Act 2002 (Tas)虽然是塔斯马尼亚的，估计NSW 也应该同出一辙。 sets out a test for when a person must take precautions to avoid a risk
of harm. It provides that the risk of harm must be ‘foreseeable’ and ‘not insignificant’, and that
in the circumstances; a reasonable person in the same position would have taken
precautions.
STANDARD OF CARE AND BREACH OF DUTY
If a person owes a duty of care to another, and that person fails to take steps to avoid a
foreseeable risk of harm, that person is considered to have breached the duty of care owed to
the other person. In order to determine whether the duty of care has been breached, it is
necessary to know what standard of care is required.
Determining what standard of care is required, and whether a duty of care has been
breached will depend upon the various circumstances of the case. The Civil Liability Act 2002
(Tas) states that in deciding whether a duty of care has been breached, a Court must
consider:
• the probability that harm would occur if care were not taken;
• the likely seriousness of the harm;
• the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm. In determining this the
Court will consider the burden of taking precautions to avoid similar risks of harm for
which the person may be responsible; and
• the potential net benefit of the activity that exposes others to the risk of harm.
This test demonstrates that there is a ‘balancing act’ which must be undertaken to
determine whether a person (or service) has breached the duty of care it owes.
我认为是CC 违法了，明明知道用金属叉子会造成e ‘foreseeable’ risk/harm, 仍然还让小朋友在没有老师的看管下使用（因为没有报告能证明当时到底发生了什么）。 |
|
小安弹指一挥八年间--纪念消逝的青春（完毕终结） (2009-2-27) aitingwang 
澳洲奇闻轶事乱弹（刚刚填满了5号坑 6号坑 7号坑） (2007-1-17) AgeanSea 
楼主:安安
发表于 2015-5-26 17:05
