1. DEFENCES
1.1. Volenti Non Fit Injuria
1.1.1. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury
1.1.2. Plaintiff has full knowledge of nature & extent of risk
1.2. Contributory negligence
1.2.1. Plaintiff contribute to his own injury by failure to take necessary precaution
1.3. Act of God
1.3.1. Tragic event happen beyond human control
1.3.2. Natural forces
2. STRICT LIABILITY
2.1. RES IPSA LOQUITOR
2.2. No need to prove all elements of negligence
2.3. Defendent was responsibles without any proof of fault on his part
3. VICARIOUS LIABILTY
3.1. Situation where someone is held responsible for actions/ omissions of another person
3.2. Employer liable for tort committed by his employee in course of employment
3.3. 2 Elements need to established
3.3.1. Tort feasor must employee of employer
3.3.1.1. CONTROL TEST
3.3.1.1.1. Employer has control over a worker
3.3.1.1.2. Control over job scope & schedlue of the employee
3.3.1.2. ORGANIZATION TEST
3.3.1.2.1. Work perform is integral part of biz/organization
3.3.1.3. MULTIPLE TEST
3.3.1.3.1. Combination test btw control & organization test
3.3.1.3.2. Used for professionals defendent
3.3.2. Tort committed in course of employment
3.3.2.1. Closeness btw careless act & employee's job
4. ELEMENTS
4.1. 1ST ELEMENT : DUTY OF CARE
4.1.1. Defendent owed plaintiff duty of care
4.1.2. Duty as imposed by law/legal duty
4.1.3. Have relation/proximity btw parties
4.1.4. Neighbour Principle : closely & directly affected by defendent's act
4.1.5. Cases : Donoughue v Stevenson
4.1.5.1. Mrs.Donoughue & friend went to a pun. Her friend ordered a ginger aler for her. She drank it & suffered shock & stomach ailment from drinking the contaminated ginger ale.
4.1.5.2. Held that defedndent was found liable bcs defendent owed duty of care towards plaintiff as they neighbour.
4.2. 2ND ELEMENT : BREACH OF DUTY
4.2.1. When defendent do something that perceived to be below minimum standard of care
4.2.2. Reasonable Man Test
4.2.2.1. If reasonable man in defendent's position would not have done what defendent did, defendent considered to have breach of duty
4.2.3. Cases : Thomas v Grand Hyatt Hotel
4.2.3.1. Plaintiff was modelling clothes for Woodward & Lothrop, which had leased a space at defendent hotel. While plaintiff walked on stage, she slipped & fell, injuring her left foot ankle
4.2.3.2. Held that since plaintiff did not know what caused her to slip & defendent was unaware of a dangerous condition that caused her to slip, therefore defendent was not in breach of duty
4.3. 3RD ELEMENT : DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF
4.3.1. Plaintiff must have suffered injury/ damaged as results of defendent's breach of duty