LAW2480 Chap.2 Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Defences
Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Defences
Negligence is analysed as a sequence, not as a general appeal to carelessness. A claimant must establish a recognised duty and its scope, breach measured against reasonable precautions, factual causation, appropriate scope of liability and actionable damage. Remoteness and defences are then addressed separately.
Business problems often involve economic loss, professional advice, unsafe premises or a claimant's own conduct, so the facts must be sorted against each element rather than discussed in one blended paragraph.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Duty and scope
- 02
Reasonable foreseeability
- 03
Breach and precautions
- 04
Factual causation
- 05
Scope and remoteness
- 06
Contributory negligence and defences
Worked example · free
Test a warehouse injury claim element by element
- +1Identify the relationship and the scope of any duty concerning safe access.
- +2Assess breach through probability, seriousness, burden and utility of precautions.
- +2Ask whether the cable was a necessary condition of the fall and whether liability should extend to this harm.
- +1Analyse the buyer's awareness and distraction as a distinct contributory-negligence issue.
Key terms
- Duty of care
- A recognised obligation to take reasonable care within a defined scope.
- Breach
- Failure to take the precautions a reasonable person would take in response to the risk.
- Factual causation
- The inquiry whether the breach was a necessary condition of the harm.
- Remoteness
- The limit excluding harm outside the reasonably foreseeable kind or proper scope of liability.
- Contributory negligence
- A claimant's failure to take reasonable care for their own safety, potentially reducing damages.
Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Defences FAQ
Does foreseeable harm automatically establish a duty?
No. Foreseeability is important, but the legal inquiry also asks whether a duty is recognised and what its scope should be in the relationship. Novel duties require careful attention to the applicable approach and competing policy considerations.
Is the but-for question the whole causation test?
No. Factual causation asks whether the breach was a necessary condition, but the analysis also considers whether responsibility for that harm should fall within the defendant's scope of liability. Keep those stages distinct.
Does contributory negligence defeat the claim?
Usually it operates as an apportionment issue rather than a complete denial. Explain the claimant's unreasonable conduct, connect it to the harm and distinguish it from the defendant's breach before discussing the likely reduction.
What evidence should a negligence answer identify?
Match evidence to the element it could prove. Risk assessments, inspection records, warnings and available precautions bear on breach. Medical material, repair records and witness accounts can connect conduct to damage. Contracts, professional roles and communications may define the relationship and duty scope.
For causation, state the counterfactual and identify evidence showing what probably would have happened with reasonable care. For loss, separate proof of injury or damage from proof of the amount claimed. Naming the missing record or witness makes a conditional conclusion useful instead of speculative.
Exam move
Draw a six-box path from duty to defence and force every practice fact into one or more boxes. Write a sentence for why the fact matters at that stage; do not merely copy it. When revising breach, practise comparing the magnitude and probability of harm with the burden of precautions. When revising causation, vary one fact and observe whether the necessary-condition conclusion changes.
This creates the conditional reasoning the exam instructions reward. Build a precaution table for breach questions. Put the risk on one side and list probability, seriousness, cost, practicality and social utility of each precaution on the other. The objective is not to produce arithmetic but to make the comparison visible.
Next, create a causal counterfactual in one sentence: had the defendant taken the identified precaution, what probably would have happened? Test that sentence against alternative causes and the evidence available. Keep remoteness in a later paragraph so foreseeability at duty or breach does not silently decide every stage.
For professional advice or economic loss, slow down at the duty question and identify the relationship, assumption of responsibility, reliance and any reason the law might restrict the claimed scope. For physical accidents, record inspection, warning, maintenance and witness evidence that could establish the actual risk. End each practice answer with a loss ledger and a separate defence paragraph.
This makes it harder to confuse the claimant's unreasonable conduct with an absence of duty or causation and helps you state an appropriate reduction rather than an unsupported all-or-nothing result.
Working through Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Defences in LAW2480? Sia is AskSia’s AI Law tutor — ask any LAW2480 Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Defences question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how LAW2480 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.