Editing Hand formula (section)

== Australia ==
In Australia, the calculus of negligence is a normative judgement with no formula or rule.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|63|2005|litigants=Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council |parallelcite=(2005) 223 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 486 |date=21 October 2005 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

In [[New South Wales]], the test is how a reasonable person (or other standard of care) would respond to the risk in the circumstances considering the 'probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken'<ref name="CLA2002">{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|cla2002161|Civil Liability Act 2002|5B}}(2)(a).</ref><ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|5|1998|litigants=Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory |parallelcite=(1998) 192 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 432 |date=2 February 1998 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> and, 'the likely seriousness of the harm',<ref name="CLA2002"/><ref>{{cite BAILII|court=UKHL |year=1950 |num=3 |litigants=[[Paris v Stepney Borough Council]] |parallelcite=[1951] {{abbr|AC|Appeal Cases}} 367 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> 'the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm',<ref name="CLA2002"/><ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|9|2002|litigants=Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(2002) [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 460 |date= |courtname=auto}}.</ref> and the 'social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm'.<ref name="CLA2002"/><ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|20|1991|litigants=E v Australian Red Cross Society |parallelcite=(1991) 27 [[Federal Court Reports|FCR]] 310 |date= |courtname=auto}}.</ref> State and Territory legislatures require that the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm be taken into account in determining whether or not a reasonable person would have taken precautions against that risk of harm.<ref name="CLA2002"/> For example, in ''Haris v Bulldogs Rugby League Club Limited'' <ref name="Haris v Bulldogs">{{cite AustLII|NSWSC|53|2006|litigants=Haris v Bulldogs Rugby League Club Limited |date=17 March 2006 |courtname= auto}}.</ref> the court considered the social utility of holding football matches when determining whether a football club took sufficient precautions to protect spectators from the risk of being struck by fireworks set off as part of the entertainment during a game.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2006-03-15 |title="Spectator at football game injured by firework : application of s5B of CLA": Haris -v- Bulldogs Rugby League Club [2006] NSWCA 53 |url=https://mccabes.com.au/spectator-at-football-game-injured-by-firework-application-of-s5b-of-cla-haris-v-bulldogs-rugby-league-club-2006-nswca-53/ |access-date=2022-12-15 |website=McCabes |language=en-US |archive-date=2022-12-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221215065003/https://mccabes.com.au/spectator-at-football-game-injured-by-firework-application-of-s5b-of-cla-haris-v-bulldogs-rugby-league-club-2006-nswca-53/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>