Breach of Duty Flashcards
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing
Standard of care in negligence is that of the ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’
Glasgow Corporation v Muir
Reasonable man is an objective status, all personal attributes of claimant are eliminated
Bolton v Stone
The reasonable man is not perfect - he is careful but still takes some risks
Not expected to take further precautions against an event so unlikely to happen (6 cricket balls hit out in 30 years)
Carmathanshire CC v Lewis
If the reasonable person would not have taken the precaution, there is no breach - do not look at outcome as evidence of breach
Etheridge v East Sussex CC
A person does not have to do everything possible to prevent harm, just take reasonable steps
Teacher was injured by a basketball - school not required to give her an absolute guarantee of safety
Wilsher v Essex
Defendant to be judged by the standard to the reasonable person who would normally perform that act
Defendant incorrectly inserted a catheter - judged against standard of normal doctor despite junior status
Philips v Whitely
If there is a choice of standard, judge on the basis of the actor
Two standards for ear piercing - surgeon or jeweller
Wells v Cooper
Doorknob fell off and injured claimant
Double standard test applied to DIY work
Wimpey Construction v Poole
Professionals who claim to possess greater skill than normal are still judged by normal standard of ordinary member of the profession
Nettleship v Weston
No concession to learner drivers
Roberts v Ramsbottom
Concessions will not be given to those incapacitated if they were aware of the disability
Defendant had a stroke whilst driving but knew his driving was impaired (hit a cyclist) - judged by standard of reasonable driver
Mansfield v Weetabix
Concessions given to those incapacitated if unaware of disability
Defendant went into hypoglycaemic shock - no idea what was going on (no breach)
Mullins v Richards
Children should be judged by the reasonable child of their age
Condon v Basi
Sports cases - breach will only be if there is blatant and reckless disregard for safety
Black v Galloway
Horseplay - no breach unless defendant’s conduct amounts to recklessness or a high degree of carelessness
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Standard of care is that of an ordinary man skilled in that particular art
Standard is met if the defendant acted in accordance with reasonable body of men skilled in that profession (does not need to be a majority)
Re Herald of Free Enterprise
Court will not accept common practice if clearly negligent
Bow doors left open and ferry sank
Wagon Mound (No 2)
The lower the risk the fewer precautions need to be taken - if cheap and easy then that precaution would be reasonable to eliminate
Pearson v Lightning
Defendant hit a golf ball into a tree which rebounded into the crowd
Breach - high likelihood of harm and simple precautions could have been taken
Haley v London Electricity Board
Appreciable likelihood of harm (blind man fell down hole left in road by electricity board)
Paris v Stepney BC
If you know something specific about a claimant that means the magnitude of harm is more significant to him than to other people, you must take extra precautions in regards to that claimant
Claimant (blind in one eye) was hit in the eye by a piece of metal at work
Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co
Defendants sold petrol to a 9 year old boy - should have realised that a child would not appreciate the danger of the fuel exploding
Latimer v AEC
Defendant must have taken reasonable steps to prevent harm (not expected to bankrupt himself)
Factory flooded after a storm - used sawdust to soak up excess water, but claimant still injured - only other thing they could have done would have been to close the factory (unreasonable)
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
Failed to take adequate precautions in ensuring the independent contractor had public liability insurance before a fireworks display which injured the claimant
Ward v London
Ambulance went through a red light and caused injury - risk taken must include balancing benefit against likelihood and magnitude of harm
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
Fire service failed to secure machinery onto vehicle and it crushed the claimant
Courts held that utility justified the risk - no breach (saving life and limb)
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
Claimant injured when sugar fell on her - only explanation was negligence, sugar was in defendant’s control (res ipsa loquitur)
Mahon v Osborn
Surgeon left a swab inside cavity after abdominal operation - would not normally happen without negligence to res ipsa loquitur applied
