Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Define the reasonable man |
The man on the street Ordinary person competing the task competently This depends on what the task is, could be a competent driver or a competent driver |
|
|
Learners + case |
Learners are judged at the same standard of the competent, more experienced person in that field Nettleship v Weston - d given driving lessons by neighbour, on 3rd lesson she failed to straighten up after turning a corner and hit a lamppost which fell on the car and injured her neighbour (Nettleship) |
|
|
Professionals + case |
Professionals judged by the standard of the profession as a whole Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee- c not warned of the risk of broken bones when receiving electric shock therapy without muscle relaxant therapy, two opinions in medical community, one to use them the other to not, so no breach of duty because the opinion of the medical community agreed with Ds actions |
|
|
Children and young people + case |
The standard is of a reasonable person of the D's age at the time of the accident Mullin v Richards - 2 15 y/o girls playdighring w/ rulers, shattered and 1 girl blinded in 1 eye, court held that they had met the standards of the reasonably competent school girl of the age and so there was no breach |
|
|
Risk factors |
When the courslt considers whether there had been a breach they take into account risk factors which raise or lower the standards of care expected: -special characteristics of c -size of risk -have all appropriate precautions been taken? -were the risks knows at the time of the accident? -is there a public benefit to taking the risk? |
|
|
Special characteristics of c + case |
Paris v Stepney BC - Mr Paris blind in one eye, welding, employer didn't give give goggles, metal shard blinded good eye, higher dirty of care required as his chance of injury was higher than the average person so employer was liable |
|
|
Size of the risk- low risk + case |
Bolton v Stone - cricket ball hit a passer-by outside a cricket ground, 17 ft high fence and wicket was a long way from fence, ball only cleared fence 6 times in last 30 year's = no breach |
|
|
Size of the risk- high risk + case |
Haley v London Electricity Board- LEB dug a trench for cables, put up warning signs but no barriers, road known to be used by blind people, c was blind and fell in = was a breach as more precautions should have been taken |
|
|
have all appropriate precautions been taken? + case |
courts consider the balance of level of risk vs cost of taking adequate precautions Latimer v AEC - factory flooded, employees evacuated, sawdust spread over most used areas of floor, 1 employee still slipped and was injured, court ruled that there was no breach as reasonable steps had been taken and there is no need to eliminate every risk however this case may be decided differently if it happened today |
|
|
were the risks known about at the time of the accident? + case |
if the risks couldn't be known, there is no breach Roe v Minister of Health - anaesthetic was kept in glass tubes, not known at the time that invisible cracks could occur causing it to be contaminated, c paralysed by it, no breach as not known |
|
|
is there public benefit to taking the risk? + cases |
if there is an emergency then greater risks can be taken sometimes quick action is needed Watt v Hertfordshire CC - c was firefighter called to RTC , woman trapped under lorry, jack required but normal vehicle wasn't available so different was used which slipped and injured c, no breach as need to save life outweighed need to take precautions. Day v High Performance Sports - c was an experienced climber who froze in position on a climbing wall, centre manager tried to rescue her in an inappropriate fashion and she fell, no breach as reacting to emergency |
