Breach Of Duty

Front 1

Question to ask when proving a breach of duty of care

Back 1

"Did the defendant fall below the standards of a reasonable man?"

Front 2

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works

Back 2

Determined that the question was objective as it's from the reasonable man's perspective.

Front 3

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Back 3

Established that personal difficulties of the defendant are not taken into account. In this case, the defendant was a learner driver and was still liable for negligence.

Front 4

Mullins v Richards (1998)

Back 4

Established a test that is suitable for the age of the defendant - a reasonable child. A 15 year old schoolgirl injured her classmate after a sword fight with rulers snapped and it hurt her eye. Not liable as the accident was foreseeable in what had been no more than a childish game.

Front 5

How many tests are there to determine breach of duty of care

Back 5

5

Front 6

Degree of probability that harm will be done

Back 6

If high, the standards of a reasonable man increases. Bolton v Stone (1951) - did not fall below the standards of a reasonable man as all precautions had been taken so the degree of probable harm was low.

Front 7

Magnitude of likely harm

Back 7

If harm is likely, you should try to prevent it. Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) - Likelihood of harm was high so Paris should have been provided with safety goggles, made worse by the fact he only had 1 eye working, so Stepney Borough Council fell below the standards of a reasonable man.

Front 8

Cost and probability of preventing risk

Back 8

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) - There was an oil spillage on a factory floor and the factory got staff to put sawdust down. Latimer slipped tried to sue AEC Ltd. Unsuccessful because AEC didn't fall below the standards of a reasonable man because they put sawdust down so were cost effective and practical of preventing risk.

Front 9

Potential benefits of the risk

Back 9

Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co. Ltd (1946) - Decided there was no point changing the law to make trains travel at 5MPH because of the potential benefits of running the risk of having them go faster.

Front 10

Professional persons

Back 10

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) - Changes the question to the standard of a reasonable professional. Bolam was suing a junior doctor for negligence after not being given a relaxant drug before treatment. Friern Hospital not liable as they had not fell below the standards of a reasonable doctor because a junior doctor is not a professional.

Front 11

Res Ipsa loquitur

Back 11

"The thing speaks for itself". Elements of duty of care and breach of this can be sometimes inferred from the very nature of an accident, even without direct evidence of how any defendant behaved.

Front 12

1st requirement for Res Ipsa loquitur

Back 12

The doctrine is dependent on the absence of any explanation.

Front 13

2nd requirement for Res Ipsa loquitur

Back 13

The harm must be of such a kind that it does not ordinarily happen if proper care is taken.

Front 14

3rd requirement for Res Ipsa loquitur

Back 14

What causes the accident must be within the exclusive control of the defendant.

Front 15

What changes in Res Ipsa loquitur cases?

Back 15

The Burden and Standard of proof. It shifts from the claimant to the defendant as they must prove their innocence.