Analyzing the breach Flashcards
Likelihood of Harm- X
cricket ball injury - 6x in the last 30yrs = no breach
Bolton v Stone
Likelihood of Harm- O
blind claimant fell down a hole dug by defendant = breach
Haley v London Electricity Board
Magnitude of Harm -Failed to provide resuscitation equipment led to brain damage = breach
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
Magnitude of Harm-Claimant had one eye, the breach, failure to provide goggles, had a higher magnitude of harm for this individual as he was more likely to go completely blind = breach
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Practicality of Precautions-‘A reasonable man… would weigh the risk against the difficulty of eliminating it’
The Wagon Mound (No. 2)
Practicality of Precautions- A flooded factory used sawdust to dry floors + workers were injured, given the only other option was to close the court held this precaution was not practical or reasonable
Latimer v AEC
Benefit of Defendant’s Conduct-Fireman injured in a fire engine on way to answer the emergency call - the fire service had not secured the equipment properly, due to human life being at risk the defendant was justified in taking abnormal risks
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Benefit of Defendant’s Conduct-liability had arose where a fire engine went through a red light, causing injury to the claimant. No difference would have been made to the damage caused by the fire if the fire engine had stopped for the lights.
Ward v London County Council
s1 allows the court to consider the deterrent effect of liability on socially desirable actvities
Compensation Act 2006
Court considers whether:
➔ Person was acting out of the benefit of society
➔ Person demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the
safety of others
➔ Did the breach happen when the person was acting heroically to assist an individual
danger
Social action, Responsibility, and Heroism Act 2015
