Strong V Woolworths Case Causation In Negligence For Non-Disclosure
Question
Task: Following the changes made in Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5; discuss causation in negligence for non-disclosure cases.
Answer
Introduction
In introducing Strong v Woolworths case suit for the purpose of negligence there should be a breach of duty and causation of negligence. According to the general principles mentioned under Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act, 2002 negligence is held as the most important factor for the determination of harm to the defendant. [1],[2] Negligence in order to be framed under civil liability must be considered with breach of duty and acts of causation. According to the Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act, 2000 negligence must amount to considerable harm and contain the acts of causation. According to the case of “Strong v Woolworths Ltd. (2012) HCA 5” it can be observed that the judgment went in favour of the plaintiff and sufficient series of causation and negligence has been proved.[3] The act must comprise itself to consider for a sufficient tortuous liability in order to be held reasonable only under the grounds of causation to comprise negligence.
Facts of the Strong v Woolworths case
In the case of “Strong v Woolworths Ltd. (2012) HCA”, the plaintiff filed a case against the defendant on the basis of probability[4]. The plaintiff Kathryn Strong, a disabled person and needed the use of crutches due to her right leg amputated above the knee fell down by the sidewalks of Big W at Centro Taree Shopping Centre while inspecting pot plants. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Respondent 1 Woolworths who had control over the sidewalk area trading as BIG W and against Respondent 2 the owner of the centre (CPT) CPT Manager Limited. The plaintiff was with her friend, daughter and around 12.30 PM fell down while inspecting the pot plants fell down by the sidewalks of the centre. The plaintiff observed a mark after falling down on the floor and understood that due to a chip which was lying in that area the crutches of her slipped and in consequence made her fall. Both her daughter and her friend Mrs. Hurst noticed the mark and identified that the fall had happened due to the chip. The sidewalks were just beside the food court and area and there were high chances of having food waste in that area. The CPT was having a contract with a cleaning service company mentioning that the sidewalks area had to be inspected and cleaned in every 15 minutes and it being the maximum time limit. An extra cleaning person was appointed to clean and inspect that area. Ms Walker was the person who was appointed by the cleaning services company opined that the area was cleaned in every twenty minutes. Ms Walker also gave evidence that the last inspection over that area was done at around 8.AM and the incident occurred in 12.30 PM. This indicates and proves that there was complete negligence on the part of the company and it was a complete justice not part of the plaintiff Kathryn Strong to institute a suit against the Respondent no .1 Woolworths, the controller of the sidewalks and against the Respondent no. 2, CPT the owner of the centre. Though the plaintiff in the Strong v Woolworths case, Kathryn Strong was not able to establish a case against Respondent no. 2, CPT before the District Court of NSW but got success in case of Respondent no.1 after going to the High Court of Australia[5]. Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act, 2002 was established on the basis of probability and series of causation[6]. The Australian High Court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, Kathryn Strong and the Respondent No. 2, Woolworths being held as responsible for the acts of negligence[7].
Principles of causation
The principles of causation are an important part of within the aspect of negligence and bear a high degree of relevance to non disclosure cases. The legal machinery of Australia has a relatively intervening role in terms of establishing a justifiable cause based on the principles of common law and a number of other doctrines. The key doctrine that comprehensively delves into the concept of causation and causality is the doctrine of “novus actus interveniens” that translates into a new intervening act. The concept of causation discussed in this Strong v Woolworths case can be fundamentally broken down into two segments, one being an actual cause and the other being proximate cause. Actual cause relates to a direct action that is responsible for any sort of injury or harm to an individual or an entity. Several tests are used by courts across Australia to determine the extent of the causation within cases of negligence.[8] These include the “but for” test along with the substantial factor test that to determine the dependent variables that eventually lead to the injury or the harm. The concept of proximate cause has also been developed over the years within Australia, and is termed as a “legal cause”. Proximate cause essentially delves into foreseeability and whether the victim was consciously liable for the damages caused by the defendant. A famous landmark judgement in this regard was the “R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271” where a stab victim refused to resort to blood transfusion and medical treatment due to her religious beliefs and eventually succumbed to her injuries.[9] The Counsel eventually agreed to the argument that the refusal for treatment would b held as an actual cause when considering the causation behind her death. The concept of the causation chain was also established in a relatively aligned manner within the case law. The Counsel was of the opinion that the decision to refuse treatment fundamentally broke the chain of causation linking the act of stabbing and the woman’s death.
The concepts of proximate and intervening elaborated in the Strong v Woolworths case causes play integral roles in ascertaining the causation within a tortuous or a criminal act. The chain of causation comes to become the next most important principle in determining the liability of an action. The occurrence of new acts can substantially alter the causation chain provided the act has a breaking effect upon the same. The doctrine of eggshell skull also finds relevance within the concept of causality and the chain of causation. The doctrine fundamentally establishes that the unexpected weakness or susceptibility within an individual would not stand to be a solid defence in terms of the actions that lead to personal harm and injury. The facet of independence within two or more causes has also been witnessed in a number of cases that lead to causation within harmful and injurious acts. this typically takes place when there are two separate causes that lead to injury, but in retrospect, each of the causes individually would stand to have similar effects. The judicial system within Australia classifies these situations as an independent sufficient cause to determine the chain of causation and establish the liability.
Another important principle that has been witnessed in Strong v Woolworths case in a number of incidents within Australia has been the aspect of concurrence within causes. Concurrent actual causes relate to scenarios where two or more causes that are distinctly separate lead to harm and injury based on negligent conduct and behaviour.[10] Scenarios that involve concurrent actual causes typically establish that without the presence of either of the causes, the entirety of the harm of the injury could have potentially been avoided.[11] The Australian legal system primarily undertakes an approach based on common sense in all of these situations along with the integration of normative questions. Several cases over the past decades have seen the presence of vindicatory damages as well, whereby the resultant outcomes were considered to be the injury as opposed to the harm suffered by the victim. An important judgement in this regard is the “Fernando by his Tutor Ley v Commonwealth of Australia (2015) HCA Trans 190 (14 August 2015)”.[12] The facts involved the false imprisonment of an individual for over three years where the Commonwealth was directed to provide for damages and compensation for unlawful detention. The liability determination was carried out through a substantial usage of causation establishment tests and its subset principles.[13]
The concept of foreseeability discussed in this Strong v Woolworths case is arguably the most important principle when considering the implications of actions that lead to harm and injury through a chain of causation.[14] The contingency in this context primarily relates to what can be deemed as foreseeable and what cannot be deemed as unforeseeable.[15] The causal foreseeability has been an important deciding factor in a number of judgements within Australia as well as a number of different commonwealth nations. However, it must be stated that the concept of causal foreseeability does not necessarily include the doctrine of “novus actus interveniens.” The causal foreseeability finds further relevance specifically in non disclosure cases involving an act of negligence.[16] However, several subsets inherently come under the purview of causal foreseeability relating to the inability of an actor to warn the victim in cases of foreseeable outcomes.[17]
Negligence in non disclosure cases
The aspect of negligence and its legality within cases relating to non disclosure has evolved dynamically within the Australian legal system over the years. Non disclosure can fundamentally be described as the deliberate withholding of relevant information that subsequently leads to harm, injury or the infliction of loss either in personal or financial contexts. Negligence inherently comes up as an integral component within the concept of non disclosure as the common law system within Australia correlates duty of care and its subsequent breach with negligence in an extensive manner. In the context of the legal system present within Australian territories at present, the concept of negligence essentially comprises of four key elements. These include the duty to act with a reasonable amount of care, breaching of the duty of care through actions or culpable omissions, infliction of injury or harm and the chain of causation. The duty of care is one of the most fundamental subsets of legal systems across the world irrespective of their origins and affiliations. The concept of duty of care mentioned in this Strong v Woolworths case entails an inherent sense of legal responsibility that binds the defendants and plaintiffs in a streamlined manner. Any failure to act responsibly within the same would result in a breach of duty and provided there are proximate causes; the same can be relied upon to form the chain of causation.
The case of “Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100” has widely been acknowledged as one of the most important landmark decisions in establishing what currently operates as the law of negligence.[18][19] Laying the foundations of the principle of fault, the facts of the case relate to the plaintiff suffering from severe stomach ailments after consuming a beer contaminated by a snail. Another important decision in this context was the more recent case law of “Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) UKHL 2” whereby the testing procedure for ascertaining the duty of care and its breach was firmly established.[20] It laid the foundations for the three fold test or the three factor test as it is known commonly comprising of the concepts of reasonable foreseeability, proximity of relationship between the parties involved and a reasonable and morally correct imposition of liability.[21] Although the case explored in this study of Strong v Woolworths case has been widely acknowledged by Commonwealth nations across the world, majority of the cases within Australia take up a functional approach based on the facts of the suit and the discretionary power of the judges. An important development that took place within the Australian perspective was the integration of the duty for mental injury within the Civil Liability Act, 2002, Ch 3. An important landmark judgement in this regard is the case of “Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (2010) HCA 22” whereby a negligent operation of a train led to the infliction of massive damage to a number of individuals and properties.[22] The plaintiff was a police officer who initiated a suit alleging that the situation caused him mental harm and injury and claimed for compensatory damages. Section 30 of the Civil Liability Act, 2002 was invoked and the judgement eventually favoured the plaintiff in the context of having witnessed individuals being put in peril.[23][24]
The breach of duty arguably forms the most important subset within negligence in non disclosure cases. The subjective nature of the aspect has led to the development of a multitude of arguments relating to ascertaining whether the breach actually took place and subsequently gauging its scope and extent.[25] The principle of reasonability mentioned in this study of Strong v Woolworths case has been heavily relied upon within the Australian legal system while settling cases related to negligence and fraudulent non disclosure. An important landmark judgement in this context was the case of “McHale v Watson (1966) HCA 13 (7 March 1966), High Court (Australia)” where the plaintiff suffered eye injuries due to a metal object thrown at her by a twelve year old child.[26][27] The judgement favored the defendant and established that a twelve year of child cannot be held liable based on the principle of reasonability. The distinct lack of foresight within children fundamentally outplays the causation and the subsequent shifting of the onus of liability onto the child. The case of “Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) UKHL 2, (1970) AC 1004” is also an important judgement followed widely across the Commonwealth nations including the territories within Australia.[28][29] The case illustrated in this study of Strong v Woolworths case expanded the scope and extent of negligence related to the duty of care and its breach along with the concept of governmental liability and the transfer of the same when acting on behalf of an external agent.[30]
The intention, motives, materiality, justifiability and opinions further play important roles in the context of ascertaining the causation and establishing the chain of causation to determine the liability. The causation within negligence in non disclosure cases takes place through proximity along with the facts and the legality of the actions that lead to the infliction of loss and injury. The case of “Wallace v Kam (2013) HCA 19” bears a high degree of relevance in this regard whereby the plaintiff was a patient who suffered from medical complications due to a procedure.[31] The doctor had failed to warn him regarding the risks involving serious implications like neurapraxia and full body paralysis.[32] Although the doctor in question was charged with negligence and unintentional non disclosure, the suit eventually went against the plaintiff based on contingencies related to causation and the chain of causation. The concept of causation discussed in this Strong v Woolworths case has had a number of opposing viewpoints and arguments presented by a number of notable jurists and legal thinkers over the past few decades. This is all the more pronounced within the perspective of the Australian legal system and has even led to the established of relatively contradicting precedents and case laws.[33] However, due to the subjective nature of it, specific judgements have been appropriated and interpreted based on the discretionary power of the courts to maintain suitability and feasibility in their application. Remoteness or proximity plays the most important role in establishing the causation factor in negligent cases of non disclosure. An important case law in this context is the case of “Jaensch v Coffey (1984) HCA 52, (1984) 155 CLR 549, High Court (Australia)” where a witness of an accident suffered from mental shock and inflicted personal injury upon herself.[34] The judgement favored the plaintiff through an establishment of causation relying on the principle of proximity and reasonability.[35]
Injury forms the final component when considering the scope and extent of negligence within cases relating to non-disclosure. Evidence and foreseeability mentioned in this Strong v Woolworths case also act as important subsets in determination and demonstration of the injury. Over the years, a number of precedents and judgments have led to a widespread development within the scope of determination of injury and personal loss. However, a number of cases have also been decided without the scope for injury based on nominal damages as remedies in the context where injury was considered an optional element. A landmark decision in this regard was the case of “Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd (1944) KB” whereby the courts favored the plaintiff in his claim for damages without any form of injury.[36] This was due to the fact that a duty of care was established through which hotels and inns were mandated to offer accommodation without any bias or prejudice in the absence of any fair cause or reasonable justification.
Conclusion
The main and essential element which constitutes a claim on the basis of negligence is its essential need for care. The case constituted above of “Strong v Woolworths Ltd. (2012) HCA 5” is based upon the series of causation and negligence.[37] It constitutes a wrong for tortuous liability and has been held liable under Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act, 2002. While giving the judgment in the “Strong v Woolworths case (2012) HCA 5” two points have been considered to frame negligence. Firstly, duty of care and secondly, breach of duty of care. Causation was an important factor in determining the guilt of Respondent no. 1 Woolworths. Alone causation cannot make a person liable and so sufficient acts of negligence had to be proven. Tort is a civil wrong which has a remedy of compensation and the wrong constituted in the case herein forth mentioned amounts to a civil wrong. The case of “Strong v Woolworths (2012) HCA 5” causation was established on the basis of probable circumstances in order to constitute a case of negligence. The case was considered to be a landmark case and it set as an example for the reference of the forthcoming cases.
[1] Legislation.nsw.gov.au. (2019). Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 Retrieved from https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/view/act/2002/22
[2] Civil Liability Act, 2002
[3] Strong v Woolworths Ltd. (2012) HCA 5
[4]hunthunt.com.au, About Litigation and dispute resolution. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.hunthunt.com.au/services/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/letting-the-chips-fall-where-they-may-doesnt-pay-case-summary-strong-v-woolworths-ltd-2012-hca-5/.
[5] Menkel-Meadow, C. Alternative and Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Context Formal, Informal, and Semiformal Legal Processes. Chapter, 50, 1-28. (2015) Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carrie_Menkel-Meadow/publication/256039660_Informal_Formal_and_%27Semi-Formal%27_Justice_in_the_United_States/links/568ab5d508ae051f9afa6c9f.pdf
[6]austlii.edu.au, About Australian Legislation. (2019). Retrieved from: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s5d.html
[7]Rock, E., and Weeks, G. Monetary awards for public law wrongs: Australia's resistant legal landscape. UNSWLJ, 41, 1159. (2018). Retrieved from: http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Rock-and-Weeks.pdf
[8] Welmans, L. and Naughton, J.. The Interest Based Penalty Tests in Paciocco and Cavendish/Parkingeye and the Law of Penalties and Damages in Australia and the United Kingdom. (2019) UW Austl. L. Rev., 44, p.157. Retrieved from: http://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3376287/44.6.pdf
[9] R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271
[10] Foley, M. and Christensen, M. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). (2016) Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=02182475&AN=119422609&h=UpsN5j8gTMR%2BWZPBgvmBrIxf2dG%2F3RvjWD6iS2eEwP61a6M7KbUVvJasQKGos0laSXmH4s8RRZskk1a3re2y%2BQ%3D%3D&crl=c
[11] Martín-Casals, M. and Papayannis, D.M. eds., 2015. Uncertain Causation in Tort Law. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=59nECgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=causation+law&ots=H--Aj3ChYU&sig=laT1wZBZtq86hF764t-06lFzhM8
[12] Ben-Shahar, O. and Porat, A. Personalizing negligence law. NYUL Rev., 91, p.627. (2016) Retrieved from https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2417&context=law_and_economics
[13] Fernando by his Tutor Ley v Commonwealth of Australia (2015) HCA Trans 190 (14 August 2015)
[14] Wright, R.W. and Puppe, I.,. Causation: Linguistic, Philosophical, Legal and Economic. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 91, p.461. (2016) Retrieved from http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4115&context=cklawreview
[15] Levmore, S. Richard Posner, the Decline of the Common Law, and the Negligence Principle. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86, pp.1137-1156. (2019) Retrieved from https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/07%20Levmore_SYMP_Post%20SA%20%28JJ%29.pdf
[16] Robbennolt, J.K. and Hans, V.P. The psychology of tort law. In Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 249-274). Springer, Cham. (2016) Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edie_Greene/publication/303828794_How_psychology_applies_to_steamship_vaccinations_tugboat_accidents_and_other_famous_moments_in_tort_law/links/5760384e08aeeada5bc2fe7d/How-psychology-applies-to-steamship-vaccinations-tugboat-accidents-and-other-famous-moments-in-tort-law
[17] Dillbary, J.S.,. Causation Actually. Ga. L. Rev., 51, p.1. (2016) Retrieved on from https://www.georgialawreview.org/api/v1/articles/1902-causation-actually.pdf
[18]Porat, A.. Inducing Negligence. (2017) Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=law_econ
[19] “Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100
[20] Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) UKHL 2
[21] Brent, M.,. Agent causation as a solution to the problem of action. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47(5), pp.656-673. (2017) Retrieved from https://philarchive.org/archive/BREACA-4
[22] Plakokefalos, I. Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity. European Journal of International Law, 26(2), pp.471-492. (2015) Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article-pdf/26/2/471/1170286/chv023.pdf
[23]Stickley, A.P.,. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths. (2016) Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/103956/
[24] Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (2010) HCA 22
[25] Cox, T.,. Uncertain Causation, Regulation, and the Courts. Supreme Court Economic Review, 24(1), pp.197-254. (2017) Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/697315
[26] Tilley, C.C. Tort Law inside out. Yale LJ, 126, p.1320. (2016) Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5796&context=ylj
[27] McHale v Watson (1966) HCA 13 (7 March 1966), High Court (Australia)
[28] Williams, G. Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-Negligence. Criminal Law and Philosophy. (2019); Retrieved on 26 August, 2019 from https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/136622
[29] Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) UKHL 2, (1970) AC 1004
[30] Khaitan, T.,. Indirect Discrimination Law: Causation, Explanation and Coat-Tailers. (2016) Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692075
[31] Wallace v Kam (2013) HCA 19
[32]Hodgson, D.,. The law of intervening causation. Routledge. (2016) Retrieved from https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2016-0-36180-4&isbn=9781351886970&format=googlePreviewPdf
[33] Wright, J. Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing. (2017) Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s000DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=negligence+law+&ots=dcOlxEzLOp&sig=iJNyyej9kQ8Pag2pDClM26X3FcA
[34] Dorfman, A. Negligence and accommodation. Legal Theory, 22(2), pp.77-123. (2016) Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Avihay_Dorfman/publication/316432120_NEGLIGENCE_AND_ACCOMMODATION/links/5a02d6e14585155c96d2f6fc/NEGLIGENCE-AND-ACCOMMODATION.pdf
[35] Jaensch v Coffey (1984) HCA 52, (1984) 155 CLR 549, High Court (Australia)
[36] Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd (1944) KB
[37] Strong v Woolworths Ltd. (2012) HCA 5
Bibliography
Journals and books
Ben-Shahar, O. and Porat, A. Personalizing negligence law. NYUL Rev., 91, p.627. (2016) Retrieved from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2417&context=law_and_economics
Brent, M.,. Agent causation as a solution to the problem of action. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47(5), pp.656-673. (2017) Retrieved from: https://philarchive.org/archive/BREACA-4
Cox, T.,. Uncertain Causation, Regulation, and the Courts. Supreme Court Economic Review, 24(1), pp.197-254. (2017) Retrieved from: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/697315
Dillbary, J.S.,. Causation Actually. Strong v Woolworths case Ga. L. Rev., 51, p.1. (2016) Retrieved from: https://www.georgialawreview.org/api/v1/articles/1902-causation-actually.pdf
Dorfman, A. Negligence and accommodation. Legal Theory, 22(2), pp.77-123. (2016) Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Avihay_Dorfman/publication/316432120_NEGLIGENCE_AND_ACCOMMODATION/links/5a02d6e14585155c96d2f6fc/NEGLIGENCE-AND-ACCOMMODATION.pdf
Foley, M. and Christensen, M. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal, 43(1). (2016) Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=02182475&AN=119422609&h=UpsN5j8gTMR%2BWZPBgvmBrIxf2dG%2F3RvjWD6iS2eEwP61a6M7KbUVvJasQKGos0laSXmH4s8RRZskk1a3re2y%2BQ%3D%3D&crl=c
Hodgson, D.,. The law of intervening causation. Routledge. (2016) Retrieved from: https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2016-0-36180-4&isbn=9781351886970&format=googlePreviewPdf
Khaitan, T.,. Indirect Discrimination Law: Causation, Explanation and Coat-Tailers. (2016) Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692075
Levmore, S. Richard Posner, the Decline of the Common Law, and the Negligence Principle. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86, pp.1137-1156. (2019) Retrieved from: https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/07%20Levmore_SYMP_Post%20SA%20%28JJ%29.pdf
Martín-Casals, M. and Papayannis, D.M. eds., 2015. Strong v Woolworths case Uncertain Causation in Tort Law. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=59nECgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=causation+law&ots=H--Aj3ChYU&sig=laT1wZBZtq86hF764t-06lFzhM8
Menkel-Meadow, C. Alternative and Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Context Formal, Informal, and Semiformal Legal Processes. Chapter, 50, 1-28. (2015) Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carrie_Menkel-Meadow/publication/256039660_Informal_Formal_and_%27Semi-Formal%27_Justice_in_the_United_States/links/568ab5d508ae051f9afa6c9f.pdf
Plakokefalos, I. Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity. European Journal of International Law, 26(2), pp.471-492. (2015) Retrieved from: https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article-pdf/26/2/471/1170286/chv023.pdf
Porat, A.. Inducing Negligence. (2017) Retrieved from: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=law_econ
Robbennolt, J.K. and Hans, V.P. The psychology of tort law. In Advances in Psychology and Law (pp. 249-274). Springer, Cham. (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edie_Greene/publication/303828794_How_psychology_applies_to_steamship_vaccinations_tugboat_accidents_and_other_famous_moments_in_tort_law/links/5760384e08aeeada5bc2fe7d/How-psychology-applies-to-steamship-vaccinations-tugboat-accidents-and-other-famous-moments-in-tort-law
Rock, E., and Weeks, G. Monetary awards for public law wrongs: Australia's resistant legal landscape. UNSWLJ, 41, 1159. (2018). Retrieved from: http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Rock-and-Weeks.pdf
Stickley, A.P.,. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths. (2016) Retrieved from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/103956/
Tilley, C.C. Tort Law inside out. Yale LJ, 126, p.1320. (2016) Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5796&context=ylj
Welmans, L. and Naughton, J. The Interest Based Penalty Tests in Paciocco and Cavendish/Parkingeye and the Law of Penalties and Damages in Australia and the United Kingdom. (2019) UW Austl. L. Rev., 44, p.157. Strong v Woolworths case Retrieved from: http://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3376287/44.6.pdf
Williams, G. Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-Negligence. Criminal Law and Philosophy. (2019); Retrieved from: https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/136622/
Wright, J. Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing. (2017) Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s000DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=negligence+law+&ots=dcOlxEzLOp&sig=iJNyyej9kQ8Pag2pDClM26X3FcA
Wright, R.W. and Puppe, I.,. Causation: Linguistic, Philosophical, Legal and Economic. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 91, p.461. (2016) Retrieved from: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4115&context=cklawreview
Case Laws
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) UKHL 2
Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd (1944) KB
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) UKHL 100
Fernando by his Tutor Ley v Commonwealth of Australia (2015) HCA Trans 190 (14 August 2015)
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) UKHL 2, (1970) AC 1004”
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) HCA 52, (1984) 155 CLR 549, High Court (Australia)
McHale v Watson (1966) HCA 13 (7 March 1966), High Court (Australia)
R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271
Strong v Woolworths (2012) HCA 5
Wallace v Kam (2013) HCA 19
Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (2010) HCA 22
Websites
Austlii.edu.au. About Australian Legislation. (2019) Retrieved on 21 August 2019; from: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/s5d.html
hunthunt.com.au, About Litigation and dispute resolution. (2019). Strong v Woolworths case Retrieved on 20 August 2019; from: https://www.hunthunt.com.au/services/litigation-and-dispute-resolution/letting-the-chips-fall-where-they-may-doesnt-pay-case-summary-strong-v-woolworths-ltd-2012-hca-5/.
Legislation.nsw.gov.au. (2019). Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22. Retrieved on 25 August, 2019 from https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/view/act/2002/22
Legislations
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
