The ‘Reasonable Tort Victim’: Contributory negligence, standard of care and the ‘equivalence theory’

Joachim Dietrich, Iain Field

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The common law presumes, and Australian civil liability statutes dictate, that the reasonableperson test is applied consistently, or equivalently, irrespective of whether the questionis posed with respect to plaintiffs (for the purposes of determining contributory negligence)or defendants (for the purposes of determining liability in negligence). The reasonable persontest is said to be purely objective. This article considers when it is necessary and, if so,appropriate, to modify the legal standard of care by imbuing the reasonable person withcertain personal characteristics (whether that standard is applied to plaintiffs or defendants),and rejects the view that the reasonable person standard should always be appliedequivalently (or uniformly) to defendants and plaintiffs. Instead, this article argues that, insome circumstances, it is appropriate that the personal characteristics of plaintiffs are takeninto account to lower the requisite standard of care. Indeed, courts have used a variety ofmechanisms to make such allowance in circumstances in which the same allowance wouldnot be made for defendants.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)602-646
Number of pages45
JournalMelbourne University Law Review
Volume41
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

equivalence
liability
human being
common law
statute

Cite this

@article{6543d0df89d34c19899919c1092768e3,
title = "The ‘Reasonable Tort Victim’: Contributory negligence, standard of care and the ‘equivalence theory’",
abstract = "The common law presumes, and Australian civil liability statutes dictate, that the reasonableperson test is applied consistently, or equivalently, irrespective of whether the questionis posed with respect to plaintiffs (for the purposes of determining contributory negligence)or defendants (for the purposes of determining liability in negligence). The reasonable persontest is said to be purely objective. This article considers when it is necessary and, if so,appropriate, to modify the legal standard of care by imbuing the reasonable person withcertain personal characteristics (whether that standard is applied to plaintiffs or defendants),and rejects the view that the reasonable person standard should always be appliedequivalently (or uniformly) to defendants and plaintiffs. Instead, this article argues that, insome circumstances, it is appropriate that the personal characteristics of plaintiffs are takeninto account to lower the requisite standard of care. Indeed, courts have used a variety ofmechanisms to make such allowance in circumstances in which the same allowance wouldnot be made for defendants.",
author = "Joachim Dietrich and Iain Field",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "602--646",
journal = "Melbourne University Law Review",
issn = "0025-8938",
publisher = "MELBOURNE UNIV LAW REVIEW ASSOC",
number = "2",

}

The ‘Reasonable Tort Victim’ : Contributory negligence, standard of care and the ‘equivalence theory’. / Dietrich, Joachim; Field, Iain.

In: Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2017, p. 602-646.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ‘Reasonable Tort Victim’

T2 - Contributory negligence, standard of care and the ‘equivalence theory’

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

AU - Field, Iain

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - The common law presumes, and Australian civil liability statutes dictate, that the reasonableperson test is applied consistently, or equivalently, irrespective of whether the questionis posed with respect to plaintiffs (for the purposes of determining contributory negligence)or defendants (for the purposes of determining liability in negligence). The reasonable persontest is said to be purely objective. This article considers when it is necessary and, if so,appropriate, to modify the legal standard of care by imbuing the reasonable person withcertain personal characteristics (whether that standard is applied to plaintiffs or defendants),and rejects the view that the reasonable person standard should always be appliedequivalently (or uniformly) to defendants and plaintiffs. Instead, this article argues that, insome circumstances, it is appropriate that the personal characteristics of plaintiffs are takeninto account to lower the requisite standard of care. Indeed, courts have used a variety ofmechanisms to make such allowance in circumstances in which the same allowance wouldnot be made for defendants.

AB - The common law presumes, and Australian civil liability statutes dictate, that the reasonableperson test is applied consistently, or equivalently, irrespective of whether the questionis posed with respect to plaintiffs (for the purposes of determining contributory negligence)or defendants (for the purposes of determining liability in negligence). The reasonable persontest is said to be purely objective. This article considers when it is necessary and, if so,appropriate, to modify the legal standard of care by imbuing the reasonable person withcertain personal characteristics (whether that standard is applied to plaintiffs or defendants),and rejects the view that the reasonable person standard should always be appliedequivalently (or uniformly) to defendants and plaintiffs. Instead, this article argues that, insome circumstances, it is appropriate that the personal characteristics of plaintiffs are takeninto account to lower the requisite standard of care. Indeed, courts have used a variety ofmechanisms to make such allowance in circumstances in which the same allowance wouldnot be made for defendants.

UR - https://law.unimelb.edu.au/mulr

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049363103&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 602

EP - 646

JO - Melbourne University Law Review

JF - Melbourne University Law Review

SN - 0025-8938

IS - 2

ER -