Breach of duty

Question 1

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Answer 1

Negligence = omission to do something a reasonable man who do, or doing something a reasonable man wouldn’t.

Water main damages during severe frost, flooded C’s house. Frost beyond expectations, nothing D could have reasonably done.

First identified the “reasonable man test”, objective standard

Question 2

Baker v Quantum Clothing Group

Answer 2

In employment, employer always owe a DoC to employees. How to discharge that duty? Standard: reasonable person.
→ Following code of practice will often be a defence in negligence, however, it is possible that the guidelines become out of date. ≠ Automatic defence. (here: no negligence)

Question 3

Halls v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club

Answer 3

Reasonable man: - ‘the man on the street’

Question 4

Healthcare at Home v The Common Services

Answer 4

Reasonable man = legal fiction (hypothetical standard). It is objective and impersonal

Question 5

Nettleship

Answer 5

Inexperienced driver. Objective standard same for all drivers Denning: “The learner driver may be doing his best, but his incompetent best is not enough”

Question 6

Philips v Whiteley

Answer 6

Lady gets ear pierces at jeweller, tried sterilize instruments, infection. C: should take same care as a surgeon. → Nope. What was expected: jeweller standard of care. Skills of a reasonable man in his position.

Question 7

Mullin v Richards

Answer 7

15yo girls fencing with plastic rulers. Breaks, injures girl in eye → Appropriate standard = reasonable 15yo girl.
(here: such games are commonplace, injury unforeseeable)

Question 8

Bolton v Stone

Answer 8

Likelihood of risk. Miss Stone hit by cricket ball that had been hit out of the ground. 17ft high fence. Only happened 6 times in 28y. No negligence, cricket ground had done everything reasonably possible to avoid risk.

Question 9

Paris v Stepney

Answer 9

Thin-skull rule. C blind in one eye. Blinded in other eye after work accident. Employers had failed to supply safety goggles, liable for total blindness rather than loss of sight in one eye. They owed him a greater DoC. Duty owed to particular ppl.

Question 10

Walker v Northumberland CC

Answer 10

Same principle for psychiatric harm. If foreseeable that greater psychiatric injury will occur, employer must guard against it.

Question 11

Latimer v AEC

Answer 11

Storm flooded D’s factory. Not enough sawdust to cover all slippery floor, but warning sign. Nonetheless reopened factory. C got injured → No negligence, factory went to reasonable lengths to secure floor, not reasonable to close down factory.

Question 12

Woolridge v Sumner

Answer 12

Photographer at horse show. Rider loses control, hurts C.

→ DoC owed to spectators, but here = error of judgement. Not negligence.

Question 13

Blake v Galloway

Answer 13

Teenage boys playing, throwing woodchip at each other (horseplay). Hit in the eye → Accident in course of game are not culpable unless go beyond rules

Question 14

Bolam

Answer 14

Mr Bolam = electro-convulsive therapy in hospital. Dr failed to provide relaxant drugs / means of restraint. Fractured pelvis Mc Nair J: “The standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill” = appropriate test
→ so “competent body of medical opinion”.
(not liable, some Dr would have carried therapy in same way)