Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort law > Breach of Duty > Flashcards

Breach of Duty Flashcards

1
Q

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

A

“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man… would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What things to consider when working out the standard of care?

A

1) Characteristics D and Reasonable person shares
2) evaluate different factors
3) special, professional skill/expertise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Nettleship v Weston

A

D’s actual characteristics are NOT attributed to reasonable person
- STRICT OBJECTIVE TEST

(here, learner driver)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

A

(arsenic poisoning bad doctor who was ill)

  • STRICT OBJECTIVE TEST (cannot consider that doctor was ill)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Mullin v Richards

A

AGE can be attributed to “reasonable person”

NB. they were VERY specific saying “15-year-old”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Mansfield v Weetabix

A

DISABILITY can be attributed to “reasonable person”

  • if he doesn’t know he suffered (if he did, it wouldn’t be reasonable to drive without medication)
  • and because it was a gradual condition so its fine he didn’t realise
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Roe v Minister of Health

A

TIMING - factors reasonable people take into account

  • cannot consider with benefit of hindsight
  • glass containers, no one knew
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Maga v Trustees of Birmingham Archdiocese Roman Catholic Church

A

must apply historic standards of 1974 not 2010

  • not unreasonable for senior priest AT THE TIME
  • institutional sexual abuse by members of their own catholic church was not recognised as being a widespread phenomenon
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Bolton v Stone

A

LIKLIHOOD/PROBABILITY OF DAMAGE - factors reasonable person takes into account

asses whether D was negligent in light of likeliness of damage (Here it wasn’t likely so D wasn’t negligent)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Wagon Mound II

A

Followed Bolton v Stone (likeliness of damage)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Whippey v Jones

A

Application of Bolton v Stone

  • likeliness of dog doing the damage was low so not negligent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Paris v Stephney Borough Council

A

GRAVITY OF HARM - factors reasonable persons takes into account

HL assess whether D is negligent in light of gravity of harm

(only one eye good)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Cost of Precautions (quote)

A

Bolton v Stone - “i do not think it would be right to take into account the difficult of remedial measures”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Latimer v AEC

A

COST OF PRECAUTIONS - factors reasonable persons takes into account

  • assess whether D was negligent in light of cost of precautions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Woolridge v Sumner

A

CONTEXT can be taken into account re: whether D was negligent

  • sporting events, for competition
  • what counts as negligence is much lower
  • negligence would be “a reckless disregard of safety” (has to be much more serious than an error of judgement or a lapse of skill)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Condon v Basi

A

amateur footballers, D breaks C’s leg

  • standard of care also modified for expertise
  • more expertise, standard of care is higher
17
Q

Blake v Galloway

A

bark throwing at each other

  • context = activity
  • standard of care lower than if C was just walking through the park
18
Q

Watt v Hertfordshire CC

A

EMERGANCY situations can be taken into care

  • firefighter injured
  • no DOC because saving a life
19
Q

Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co

A
  • Asquith LJ (obiter) – talks about if trains were restricted to 5mph, there would be less accidents but our national life would be intolerably slowed down
  • The purpose to be served, if sufficiently important, justifies the assumption of abnormal risk
20
Q

King v Sussex Ambulance

A
  • CONFIRMED life-saving purpose of D means lower standard of care is imposed
  • Ambulance service is not liable due to the fact it was an emergency situation of saving a life
  • buxton LJ (obiter) concerns about this principle that altruistic purpose of D means a lower standard of care is required
21
Q

COMPENSATION ACT 2006 S.1

A

When considering standard of care, have regard to whether requirement to take those steps might:
a) Prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent, or in a particular way

b) Discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity

22
Q

Sutton v Syston Rugby Club

A

CA said rugby matches are obviously desirable activities under s.1 of the act

CA said it is important not to set standard of care too high to make it discouraging for amateur organisers to organise these sports

23
Q

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND HEROISM ACT 2015

A
  1. When considering whether a person was negligent/breached statutory duty, steps taken to decide whether person met standard of care, courts must consider:
  2. SOCIAL ACTION (benefit of society?)
  3. RESPONSIBILITY (responsible approach?)
  4. HEROISM

BUT if D exhibits these things, doesn’t mean D isn’t liable – just means courts must take it into account

24
Q

Morton v William Dixon

A

can look at other industry standards in two ways:

ONE – the thing which D did was not a thing commonly done by other persons in like circumstances

TWO – the thing D did was so obviously wanted, it would be folly and negligent to fail to provide it

25
Q

Baker v Quantum Clothing Group

A

Look at what health and safety said to see if employer was negligent

26
Q

Chipchase v British Titan Products Co

A

CA rejected argument that said you can look at statutory standard when assessing DOC

  • unless statutory standard actually applies, don’t look at it
27
Q

United States v Carroll

A

Learned Hand Formula

B

28
Q

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

A

(break bone electric shock)

Q becomes: was what was done in accordance with a practice accepted as proper for a reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art

29
Q

Bolitho v City & Hackney

A
  • body in Bolam, has to be RESPONSIBLE (endorsed body)
  • and has to be LOGICAL basis
  • if choice of treatment involves weighing up risks/benefits, essential to show experts have undertaken a balancing assessment
30
Q

Montgomery v Lancashire Health Board

A

exception to Bolam/Bolitho

  • negligence if D failed to warn patient about risks of treatment
  • patients have a right to information about all material risks
31
Q

Moy v Pettman Smith

A

lawyer situation
- D is “paid for her opinion not her doubt”

  • D shouldn’t have to explain D’s reasons to persons who pays fees
  • STRIKING CONTRAST TO Montgomery which says give full information so C can make his own decision (here D doesn’t have to explain reasons for decision re: litigation)
32
Q

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

A

inexperience is no defence

duty is tailored to acts which doctor elects to perform, not doctor himself

33
Q

RES IPSA LOQUITAR

A

Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co

where thing is shown to be under management of D and his servants

and in the ordinary course of dealings, accidents like this does not happen if those who have management used proper care

34
Q

George v Eagle Air Services

A

D crashed plane, killing C
Plane was deemed airworthy so accident should not have happened

  • res ipsa loquitur
  • if no evidence, then negligence
35
Q

Widdowson v Newgate Meat Corporation

A

C hit by D whilst walking on road - evidence that it was a clear night and ordinarily it wouldn’t happen

  • res ipsa loquitur
  • no one present evidence so D was guilt
  • CN though, reduced by 50%

Tort law (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions