Breach of duty Flashcards
Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks
Basic test - ‘omission’ to do what a reasonable man would have done. ‘Man on the Clapham Omnibus’ = objective standard.
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group
Basic test for industry - industrial standards; but they are not conclusive.
Nettleship v Weston
Learner driver is held to the same standard as a normal driver.
Phillips v Whiteley (William) Ltd
Skills. Lady gets ears pierced. A jeweller is expected to do what a jeweller would not, not what a suregon would do.
Mullin v Richards
Age. Two 15 year old school girls were fighting with plastic rulers. A ruler snapped and a splinter went into one of the girls eyes causing blindness. The girl brought an action against the other girl for her negligent action.
Held: The girl was only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable 15 year old school girl not that of a reasonable man. She was found not to be in breach of duty.
Orchard v Lee
Age. The Judge directed himself that the test he had to apply was whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 13 year old school boy would have realised that his actions gave rise to a risk of injury.
Mansfield v Weetabix
Disability. Diabetic person. To apply an objective standard in a way that did not take account of Mr Tarleton’s condition would be to impose strict liability. But that is not the law.”
Roe v Minister of Health
Timing as a factor in making assessment. Two claimants had been given an anaesthetic for minor operations. The anaesthetic had been contaminated with a sterilising fluid. This resulted in both claimants becoming permanently paralysed. The anaesthetic had become contaminated during storage. The anaesthetic was stored in glass ampoules which were emerged in the sterilising fluid. It transpired the ampoules had minute cracks which were not detectable with human eye. At the time it was not known that the anaesthetic could be contaminated in this way and the hospital followed a normal procedure in storing them this way.
Unforseeable risk as it was unknown at the time.
Compensation Act 2006, s.1
Utility of conduct
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2014-15
Deterrent effect of potential liability as a factor in making the assessment.
Bolton v Stone
Probability of harm. Cricket ground, Ms Stone gets hit with a circket ball, the costs of prevention would be too high compared to the probability of harm.
The Wagon Mound (No 2)
The defendant’s vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf.
Held: The defendants were in breach of duty. Although the likelihood of harm was low, the seriousness of harm was high and it would have cost nothing to prevent it.
Blair-Ford v CRS Adventures Ltd
Welly-wanging, teacher tetraplegig. The likelihood of an accident of the kind that occurred was ‘lacking such reality that it could have been disregarded’. Thus, in this case at least, there was not a foreseeable risk that any reasonable person would have considered. Therefore, no one was to blame for what was ultimately a tragic and freak accident.
Paris v Stepney BC
Greater DoC because Claimant only had one eye and was not given protective glasses
Latimer v AEC
Costs of precautions. A freak storm which flooded the factory. There was not enough sawdust to cover everything, but signs were displayed warning about the slippery floor. It would have been too expensive to close down the factory completely, so no breach.
