Breach of Duty Flashcards
what is the test for breach of duty
the reasonable man test
describe the reasonable man test
an objective test to see if a reasonable man of ordinary levels of skills/ knowledge would act the same in that situation
are special characteristics taken into account for the rmt
no
what are the 3 special characteristics and the cases associated with them
learners (Nettleship v Weston)
professionals (Bolam Principle)
children (Mullin v Richards)
what are learners compared to
fully qualified people
what are professionals compared to
ordinary skilled members of the same profession
what are children compared to
ordinary children of the same age
what happened in Nettlship v Weston
C injured while teaching D to drive, Weston liable and compared to qualified driver
what happened in Bolam v Frierm HMC
C went under electro convulsive therapy and suffered fractures even tho relaxants should’ve reduced the risk but the practice was accepted by other doctors
what happened in Mullins v Richards
two 15 yo girls playing with rulers, one snapped and one girl was blinded, not liable due to age
what case established breach of duty
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks co (1856)
what happened in Blyth v Birmingham Wateeworks co
BWco lay water pipes around Birmingham, 25 years after installation the water main spring a leak however no bod
what are the 4 risk factors and the cases associated with them
1) degree of damage (Bolton v Stone)
2) potential seriousness of harm ( Paris v Stephneh BC)
3) Cost and Practicality ( Latimer v AEC)
4) Social Utility ( Watt v Herefs CC )
what happened in Bolton v Stone
C injured standing on road hit with cricket ball, unlikely so not liable
what happened in Paris v Stephney BC
C blind in one eye, company didn’t provide welding goggles, metal went into eye so completely blind, liable
what happened in Latimer v AEC
factory flooded sawdust used to reduce the effects, employee fell injured but not liable bc they couldn’t shut down while factory
what happened in Watt v Herefs CC
person trapped under vehicle so fire service sent lorry but fireman injured by equipment en route, saving life justifies risk so not liable
what are the 3 parts to establish Res Ispa Loquitur
1) the thing that caused damage was under D’s sole control
2) incident is one which wouldn’t have happened unless there was negligence
3) there is no other obvious reason the incident occurred
what is the case for Res Ispa Loquitur
Scott v London and St Katharine Docks Co
what happened in Scott v London and St Catharine Do ks Co
C has 6 bags of sugar dropped on him by crane that’s under control of the warehouse; only obvious reason is negligence
