Breach Of Duty

Front 1

blyth v proprietors of the birmingham water works

Back 1

this case introduces the reasonable man

Front 2

hall v brooklands auto racing club

Back 2

this introduced the reasonable man as a man on the street

Front 3

factors courts take into account when deciding there has been a breach of duty

Back 3

- foreseeability of risk
- magnitude of risk
- practicality of precautions
- potential utility of the defendants claimant

Front 4

roe v minister of health

Back 4

summary: two claimants received anaesthetic, but got severe medical injuries because it was contaminated. they were suing the hospital for damages because the hospital breached their duty.
decision: there was not breach because the risk of micro fractures was unknown. there was no breach as there was no forgeability of risk
note: this is a case that shows foreseeability of risk

Front 5

two aspects to look at for magnitude of risk

Back 5

- likelihood of harm
-severity of potential damage

Front 6

bolton v stone

Back 6

summary: claimant was suing because she was walking on the road and was hit by a cricket ball that had been hit over the fence of the cricket club. over 28 years of cricket the ball had been hit out of the grounds 6 times
decision: there was no breach as even though harm was foreseeable it was not likely. the road wasn't a very busy one
note: this was an important case as it got rid of the notion that forgeability was all it took for a person to be negligent
note: this is a case on likelihood of harm for breach of duty

Front 7

miller v jackson

Back 7

summary: the claimants were suing because cricket balls from the adjoining cricket club kept going into their land. since the new houses had been built (the cricket club was playing 70 years before the new buildings) the cricket balls had gone over 13 times. the defendants had offered unbreakable glass windows, an had raised the fence from 6 ft to 15 ft.
decision: courts decided that there had been a breach of duty because the likelihood of harm was much greater duty to the number of balls being hit out of the ground (around 8 per year).
note: this is a case of likelihood of harm for breach of duty

Front 8

Harris v Perry

Back 8

summary: there was a children's birthday party where the parents had hired a bouncy castle. one of the parents was watching the bouncy castle and turned around for a minute. when she turned around one of the children got injured by being kicked in the head as they were attempting somersaults.
decision: there was no breach because though the did have a duty it wasn't foreseeable that such an injury would occur on a bouncy castle.
note: this shows that likelihood of injury was very low though a risk was foreseeable
note: this is an example of severity of potential damage

Front 9

Latimer v AEC

Back 9

summary: there was a flood that caused an oil spill in the factor. the owners put sawdust around the main parts of the factory but left the uncommon areas because the sawdust had run out. they opened the factory and the employee fell where the floor was not covered
decision: the court decided there was no breach as no reasonable employer would have shut down the factory. the claimant hadn't shown that the likelihood of harm was foreseeable.
note: the court looked at the fact that no employer would close down a factory because they would lose too much money
note: this is an example of practicality of precautions

Front 10

Wagon mound no 2

Back 10

summary: the defendants allowed oil to leak from their ship that then caught fire and damaged people's property.
decision: there was a breach because there was no good reason to allow the tank to slip into the harbour, and could have easily been stopped.
"if a real risk can properly br described as remote, it must then be held to be not reasonably foreseeable"
"if it is clear that the reasonable man would have realised or foreseen and prevented the risk, then it must follow that the appellant are liable in damaged"
note: this shows that foreseeability is a factor and not an absolute threshold and must be seen in the light of other facts
note: conduct is seen as careless if it falls short of the standard of the reasonable man's behaviour
note: this is an example of practicality of precautions for breach of duty

Front 11

Watt v hertfordshire county council

Back 11

summary: a jack wasn't holstered into the fire lorry properly, but there was an emergency and this was the only lorry available. the jack then injured someone
decision: there was no breach because the jack was needed at the rescue and there was no other means of transportation. it was reasonable to risk someone getting hurt because it was essential for rescue.
note: this is an example of potential utility of the defendant's conduct
note: this was codified in the compensation act 2006 section 1

Front 12

the scout association v barnes

Back 12

summary: barned was a boy scout injured whilst playing a scout game
decision: this as not a breach because the playing of the game was only to increase excitements rather for an educational or social value
note: this is an example of potential utility of the defendant's conduct

Front 13

Bolam v Friern hospital

Back 13

summary: the claimant was undergoing elect-convulsive for depression. he got injured. he sued because he should have been given a pre relaxant drug, held down
decision: the standard of test is for the reasonable doctor. there are doctors who would shave carried out the thereby in the same manner so there could be no negligence
note: this created the bola test
note: this showed that people with a special skill should be tested not by the reasonable man on the street but a reasonable person with that skill
note: if there was more than one practice all the defendant had to prove was that he used one of them
note: bolam test was criticised for being too vague, too kind on practitioners

Front 14

bolitho v city and hackney

Back 14

summary: a two year old boy died because his airways had become blocked, this would shave been easily avoided if the doctor had come when called and cleared the obstruction the hospital admitted negligence but the doctor said he wouldn't have cleared the obstruction even if he was there
decision: if there is more than one school of thought the court can decide as long as it is not completely unreasonable and out of logic

Front 15

pierce v doncaster

Back 15

summary: pierce was brought up in a unstable household. he was taken into care, and then doncaster decided to release him back to his parents even with all the signs of danger. pierce then got a personality disorder
decision: courts decided that no reasonable council would have reached the decision to send the boy back.
note: bolam test was used appropriately
note: standard of care was judged against other council workers

Front 16

mullins v richards

Back 16

summary: two girls were playing "fencing" with rulers and one got injured in the eye.
decision: the courts decided such games were common and would normally not lead to injury then the injury was unforeseeable
note: standard of care was measured not of an reasonable adult but of a 15 year old girl in the defendants position

Front 17

orchard v lee

Back 17

summary: a boy was running backwards in the playground injuring a teacher
decision: risk of harm was insufficient on its own to make the 13 year old boy liable. the school did not prohibit running backwards. he was doing what any 13 year old boy would have done