breach of duty Flashcards
what happens in a negligence claim?
the injured person needs to show that the other person didn’t act as a reasonable and careful person would have in that situation. If they can prove this, they might have a case for negligence.
the likelihood of an accident happening - Bolton v stone 1952
cricket club
- even though it was foreseeable that a ball might go over the fence occasionally, the cricket club had already taken sensible measures by having a tall fence.
- chance of injury was very rare and they had done what a reasonable person would have to prevent it
- was not held liable for the accident.
miller v jackson - cricket club
the cricket club was held accountable because the risk of damage from cricket balls hitting nearby properties was quite frequent. Despite knowing about this risk and being requested to take precautions, the club didn’t do enough to prevent the damage, leading to them being found liable for the harm caused.
the extent of potential harm
definition: The more likely and severe the harm that could happen, the more responsibility the person causing the risk has to take action to prevent that harm
Paris v stepney council
The claimant, blind in one eye, was injured in the defendant’s garage when debris struck his good eye, causing blindness. Despite the lack of safety goggles as standard practice, the defendant knew of the claimant’s disability. The court ruled the defendant liable due to the heightened risk of severe harm (total blindness) to the claimant compared to other workers. Not providing goggles constituted negligence as the defendant failed to mitigate the increased potential damage resulting from the claimant’s condition, leading to the loss of vision in the good eye.
The practicability of taking precautions: risk-benefit analysis
The legal standard of care aims to balance safeguarding the claimant without imposing excessive burdens on the defendant. Recognizing that some level of risk is inherent, the law doesn’t aim for a completely risk-free environment. The court considers factors like the nature and scale of the business in determining reasonableness. While costs might not be decisive if the risk of harm is significant, proper risk assessments, when mandated, demonstrate that the employer fulfilled their obligations. Conducting thorough risk assessments can establish that the employer has met the required standards of care in specific activities as per the law.
Latimer v AEC
During a flood in a factory, the floor became slippery. The defendant spread sawdust on commonly used walkways and cautioned employees to be careful but didn’t treat less used areas. The claimant slipped and got injured in an untreated zone. The claimant argued for a complete factory shutdown, but the court found the risk and potential injury didn’t warrant it. The precautions—sawdust on main pathways and warnings—were considered reasonable given the circumstances, even though an accident occurred in an untreated area.
skilful claimants
If a claimant has a particular skill which means he should be aware of any danger, the defendant will not be expected to take steps to protect the claimant from that danger.
Roles v Nathan (1963)
two chimney sweeps got overwhelmed by fumes while sealing a flue hole. The boiler was still burning, although it should have been turned off during the job. The court ruled the defendant wasn’t negligent. The sweeps, due to their experience, should have known to switch off the boiler before starting the work, so the defendant wasn’t held responsible for their oversight.
The qualifications claimed by the defendants
If a defendant holds himself out as having a reasonable degree of skill and care i.e., because they hold qualifications in a certain area, they will be liable if they fail to act with that degree of skill and care.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)
a patient received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) without muscle relaxants and suffered a fracture. The court decided the hospital wasn’t negligent because the treatment followed the practice accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if some disagreed. This case established that medical professionals aren’t negligent if they act in line with accepted medical practice, even if other opinions exist.
