Test a Victorian failure-to-warn allegation against the obvious-risk provisions

MaintainedLast reviewed

Key facts

Human involvement
YellowClose supervision
How AI is used
Extract what warning was given, what risk is said to be obvious, and whether the risk was a work risk or a health service, and set those facts against Wrongs Act 1958 sections 50, 53, 54 and 56. Do not decide breach.
What the lawyer must review
  • Apply sections 50, 53, 54 and 56. Section 54 is not a no-duty-to-warn rule.
  • Check the professional, health-service and work-risk exceptions.
  • The tool tables the warning facts. The lawyer decides breach and awareness.
Written for / version
Victoria versionVICNSWQLDUS

Rules that apply

The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.

The work product

Forum. Victoria: a Wrongs Act failure-to-warn allegation

Produce. A fact table under sections 50, 53, 54 and 56, including any work-risk or health-service exception, for the lawyer to decide.

Have ready. The warning alleged and the warning given; The risk said to be obvious; Whether the claim is a work risk or a health or professional service; What the person says they knew.

Example of the limit. Illustrative example: The risk is said to be obvious, and the claim is a health service. The tool marks that section 54(2) does not apply the awareness presumption to a health service, and that section 56(3) puts the section 56 burden back on for a health service. The lawyer decides breach.

Stop and hand it back when

  • The allegation is being treated as if there were no duty to warn of an obvious risk.
  • Section 59 is about to be stated without being opened.

Sources for this task were checked on 2026-10-23.

Who does what

Who does what
RoleWhat they do
AssistanceExtract what warning was given, what risk is said to be obvious, and whether the risk was a work risk or a health service, and set those facts against Wrongs Act 1958 sections 50, 53, 54 and 56. Do not decide breach.
LawyerSet the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output.

Checklist

  1. Section 53 defines an obvious risk for section 54, including a low-probability risk and a risk that is not observable. A risk created by a failure to operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for a thing is not obvious unless that failure itself is obvious.
  2. Section 54, where voluntary assumption of risk is raised and the risk is obvious, presumes awareness unless the person proves they were not aware. It does not apply to a professional or health service, or to risks associated with work done by one person for another.
  3. Section 50 says a duty to warn is satisfied if reasonable care is taken in giving the warning. It is not a rule that there is no duty to warn of an obvious risk.
  4. Section 56 puts the burden on the plaintiff, on a failure-to-warn or failure-to-inform allegation, to prove they were not aware. Subsection (2) takes work risks out. Subsection (3) puts a health service back in.

Sources

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) section 5H and Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 15 were opened. Each says there is no proactive duty to warn of an obvious risk, with stated exceptions. That is not sections 50 or 54.

Section 60 was opened and only says section 59 does not apply to a liability about giving or failing to give a warning associated with a professional service. Section 59 was not opened. The lawyer reads it before relying on that carve-out.

If the product supports a court document, apply the note for that court: Supreme Court Practice Note SC GEN 25 (14 May 2026), the County Court practice note on artificial intelligence by court users (9 June 2026), or the Magistrates' Court guidelines issued 19 October 2026. One tool cannot verify another. Do not put confidential or sensitive information into a public tool.

Related tasks

Related tools

Related jurisdictions