Abstract
In a range of decisions in contract, equity and under the Trade Practices Act,the High Court has rejected the possibility of the apportionment of damagesas a result of a plaintiff’s contributory fault. Instead, the trend of decisions istoward an all-or-nothing approach to the award of damages: either a plaintiffsuccessfully establishes that the defendant’s conduct caused the loss andrecovers fully or else a defendant establishes that some intervening event(including perhaps the plaintiff’s conduct) breaks the chain of causation andthere is no recovery Such a trend is to be regretted. However, itsresonances may even be beginning to be felt in torts law, where some caseshave denied that a defendant owes a duty of care, or has breached suchduty if owed, in part because of some failure by the plaintiff to have regardfor his or her own safes
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 51-67 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Torts Law Journal |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2003 |
| Externally published | Yes |