Breach of duty Flashcards
relevant consideration - the D’s purpose
Watt V Hertfordshire CC
woman trapped under car (emergency) - D transported a jack on an ordinary vehicle with three firefighters steadying it, jack slipped and C injured
CoA - D not liable - must balance risk against the end to be achieved - here responding promptly to an emergency if in a commercial enterprise without an emergency D would be liable
reasonableness of D’s conduct must be judged in light of all relevant circumstances - Qualcast case
reasonable person standard
Glasgow Corporation V Muir - objective test - insensitive to D’s personal equation or idiosyncrasies
nettleship v weston - learner drivers are held to the same standard of care as experienced drivers.
McHale V watson - children and age should be a consideration
The Compensation Act 2006, section 1:
Courts ‘may’ consider whether a decision in favour of C ‘might’:
(a) ‘prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken’ or
(b) ‘discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity’.
address blame culture problem - poss deterrent effect liability has by being imposed too broadly
emergency reconstruction - a desirable activity within s.1 compensation act 2006
breach of duty and pursuit of justice
glasgow corporation v muir - all a person can be bound to foresee are the reasonable and probable cons of the failure to take care
nee to know what reasonable person would do at time - balancing C’s interests and D’s freedom of action
occupational stress - walker v northumberland CC
employers = under duty to provide employees with reasonably safe system of work and take reasonable steps to protect employees from reasonably foreseeable risks of workplace
W = manager in social services for CC and resp for childcare cases, 1975 to 1986 workload increased but resourcing didnt and suffered psych harm - took time off and returned with assurance that workplace would be altered but it wasnt - suffered 2nd breakdown and dismissed - claim brough for employer not following duty - only 2nd duty was foreseeable - where threat of mental harm is concerned the employer should take reasonable care
occupational stress - hatton v sunderland
help guide judges when deciding occupational stress cases
key test is did the employer exercise reasonable care when harm reasonably foreseeable
different jobs = different lvls of duty
where D offers advice service with referral to appropriate counselling/ treatment - liability = unlikely
jenny steele - since walker claims for occupational stress = common
breach of duty and medicine
bolam v friern hospital management committee - the test is the standard of the ordinary reasonable man exercising that special skill
doctors insulated from liability - ‘A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he [or she] has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men [or women] skilled in that art’.
