A-Level Tort Law: Breach Of Duty Of Care

Front 1

Breach

Back 1

Falling below an expected standard of reasonableness - never an absolute duty to prevent harm

Holt v Edge (2006)

Claimant's symptoms were unusual for her case. Defendant doctor's did not fall below the standard for misdiagnosing.

Front 2

What behavior is expected of the reasonable person?

Back 2

The courts will consider:

• Special characteristics of D & C

• Size of the risk

• Practicality of Precaution

• Common practice in relevant field

• Any benefits gained by society

Front 3

Special Characteristics of Defendant

Back 3

Child: Ordinary and careful child of same age - Mullins v Richards (1998)

Illness: Infirmity beyond D's control - Roberts v Ramsbottom (1980) (Stroke)

Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd (1997) (Sugar level)

Differences of Opinion (more detailed)

Front 4

Differences in opinion

Back 4

Bolam - doctor won't be guilty of negligence, if a reasonable body of other doctors consider the practice to be correct.

Bolitho - Bolam still applies, courts not obliged to exclude liability just because accepted by other doctors.

Front 5

D's Characteristics

(Changes in Knowledge)

Back 5

Roe v Minister of Health (1954)

Where knowledge and practice changes over time, defendant is judged according to acceptable practices at the time of alleged negligence.

Front 6

Special Characteristics of Claimant

Back 6

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Facts: One eyed worker had good eye damaged, defendant was sued for no provision of safety goggles.

Principle:

Where a claimant has a condition that increases risk of harm, defendant may have a DoC to take extra precautions to protect.

Front 7

Size of the Risk

Back 7

Includes chances of occurrence and seriousness of potential damage

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Chances of ball flying out so slight that it was not negligent to ignore.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Potential seriousness of damage was a deciding factor.

Front 8

Practicality of Precaution

Back 8

Magnitude of risk is balanced with cost and trouble expected by defendant to eradicate it.

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Claimant had sued for slipping on an uncovered patch of wet floor.

Held: Slippery patches clearly visible and to eradicate risk entirely was to close down the factory and thus was not practical.