term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
Breach
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.
What behavior is expected of the reasonable person?
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
Special Characteristics of Defendant
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)
Differences in opinion
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.
D's Characteristics
(Changes in Knowledge)
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.
Special Characteristics of Claimant
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.
Size of the Risk
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.
Practicality of Precaution
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.
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!