BREACH OF DUTY

Question 1

WHICH CASE SET OUT THE PRINCIPLES USE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTED REASONABLY?

Answer 1

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856]

Question 2

WHAT ARE THE FOUR IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE TEST FOR BREACH OF DUTY AS SET OUT IN THE JUDGEMENT OF BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO [1856]?

Answer 2

1. It is objective, judging the defendant against a standard of the reasonable person
2. Negligence is unintentional
3. A reasonable person would decide by experience whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable
4. It is not negligent to fail to protect against a very unlikely event.

Question 3

WHEN WILL LIABILITY BE IMPOSED?

Answer 3

If the defendants conduct has fallen below the standard of a reasonable person

Question 4

WHAT RULE WAS APPLIED IN ORCHARD V LEE [2009]?

Answer 4

A child is judged by the standard of a reasonable person of the same age

Question 5

AT WHAT STANDARD WILL A PROFESSIONAL, ACTING IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, BE JUDGED?

Answer 5

At the standard of the reasonably competent professional carrying out that particular task

This standard is applied even if the circumstances are tragic

Question 6

WHAT TEST WAS ESTABLISHED IN BOLAM V FRIERN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [1957]?

Answer 6

A professional person will not be in breach of the standard expected of them if they showed that they acted as other reasonably competent professionals would have acted in the same situation

Question 7

WHICH CASE QUALIFIED THE TEST THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN BOLAM V FRIERN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [1957]?

Answer 7

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997]

Expert evidence indicating the prevailing standard of professional skill must be logically supported

Question 8

HOW IS THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL AND INTELLIGENCE OF DEFENDANTS JUDGED?

Answer 8

Objectively.

They are expected to possess the intelligence and general knowledge of a reasonable person in their position at the time the event occurred

Question 9

WHAT FACTOR AFFECTS THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE RISK?

Answer 9

The likelihood of its occurrence.

This is called the magnitude of the risk – the greater the risk, the greater care the defendant should take.

Question 10

WHAT ARE THREE OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING A BREACH?

Answer 10

1. The vulnerability of the claimant
2. The importance of the defendant’s objective when the tort occurred
3. The cost of avoiding harm

Question 11

WHEN IS THE STANDARD OF CARE HIGHER?

Answer 11

If there is something about the claimant that makes them particularly likely to be harmed

Question 12

WHAT DID THE COURT HOLD IN WATSON V BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL [2001] IN RESPECT OF THE VULNERABILITY OF THE CLAIMANT?

Answer 12

It was held that the board was negligent for not having resuscitation equipment and somebody capable of using it at the ringside.

The board was aware that serious head injuries frequently occurred during boxing matches and that rapid resuscitation was vital to minimise the risk of serious and permanent damage

Question 13

WHEN MAY AN ACT WHICH IS LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM BE JUSTIFIED?

Answer 13

If the defendant is engaged in a socially desirable activity at the time

Question 14

WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE SOCIAL ACTION, RESPONSIBILITY AND HEROISM ACT 2015?

Answer 14

To protect volunteers, rescuers and small businesses from negligence claims

Question 15

WHAT DOES THE TERM ‘COST’ OF AVOIDING HARM ENCOMPASS?

Answer 15

The lengths to which a potential defendant must go to protect against a risk

Question 16

WHAT IS THER GENERAL RULE IN RESPECT OF PROVING A BREACH?

Answer 16

The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent