Breach of Duty

Question 1

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing

Answer 1

Standard of care in negligence is that of the ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’

Question 2

Glasgow Corporation v Muir

Answer 2

Reasonable man is an objective status, all personal attributes of claimant are eliminated

Question 3

Bolton v Stone

Answer 3

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)

Question 4

Carmathanshire CC v Lewis

Answer 4

If the reasonable person would not have taken the precaution, there is no breach - do not look at outcome as evidence of breach

Question 5

Etheridge v East Sussex CC

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Wilsher v Essex

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Philips v Whitely

Answer 7

If there is a choice of standard, judge on the basis of the actor
Two standards for ear piercing - surgeon or jeweller

Question 8

Wells v Cooper

Answer 8

Doorknob fell off and injured claimant

Double standard test applied to DIY work

Question 9

Wimpey Construction v Poole

Answer 9

Professionals who claim to possess greater skill than normal are still judged by normal standard of ordinary member of the profession

Question 10

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 10

No concession to learner drivers

Question 11

Roberts v Ramsbottom

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Mansfield v Weetabix

Answer 12

Concessions given to those incapacitated if unaware of disability
Defendant went into hypoglycaemic shock - no idea what was going on (no breach)

Question 13

Mullins v Richards

Answer 13

Children should be judged by the reasonable child of their age

Question 14

Condon v Basi

Answer 14

Sports cases - breach will only be if there is blatant and reckless disregard for safety

Question 15

Black v Galloway

Answer 15

Horseplay - no breach unless defendant’s conduct amounts to recklessness or a high degree of carelessness

Question 16

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

Re Herald of Free Enterprise

Answer 17

Court will not accept common practice if clearly negligent

Bow doors left open and ferry sank

Question 18

Wagon Mound (No 2)

Answer 18

The lower the risk the fewer precautions need to be taken - if cheap and easy then that precaution would be reasonable to eliminate

Question 19

Pearson v Lightning

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Haley v London Electricity Board

Answer 20

Appreciable likelihood of harm (blind man fell down hole left in road by electricity board)

Question 21

Paris v Stepney BC

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co

Answer 22

Defendants sold petrol to a 9 year old boy - should have realised that a child would not appreciate the danger of the fuel exploding

Question 23

Latimer v AEC

Answer 23

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)

Question 24

Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club

Answer 24

Failed to take adequate precautions in ensuring the independent contractor had public liability insurance before a fireworks display which injured the claimant

Question 25

Ward v London

Answer 25

Ambulance went through a red light and caused injury - risk taken must include balancing benefit against likelihood and magnitude of harm

Question 26

Watt v Hertfordshire CC

Answer 26

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)

Question 27

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks

Answer 27

Claimant injured when sugar fell on her - only explanation was negligence, sugar was in defendant’s control (res ipsa loquitur)

Question 28

Mahon v Osborn

Answer 28

Surgeon left a swab inside cavity after abdominal operation - would not normally happen without negligence to res ipsa loquitur applied