Breach of Duty Flashcards
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856
Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man would do - Baron Alderson.
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club 1933
Refers to the man on the street and the Clapham omnibus as the reasonable man.
Only need to take precautions against dangers which any spectator could see.
Mullins v Richards 1998
Children fighting with rulers. One girl blinded the other but found not to have breached a duty of care.
Only expected to meet the standards of a normal 15 year old.
Wells v Cooper 1958
Persons professing to have a skill or experience are held to the standard of ordinary skilled man professing to exercise the relevant skill.
D fitted door handle in his home so D was judged by the standards of a reasonably competent carpenter.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957
Breach of duty of doctors.
Did not give any relaxing drugs to the patient and so the patient suffered a fracture. Divided opinion regarding whether drugs are needed so was not found to be negligent.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 1988
Baby developed an incurable eye condition which may have been a result of the doctor not giving oxygen. Same standard of a qualified doctor and so was found liable.
Nettleship v Weston 1971
Learner drivers are held to the standard of a reasonable qualified driver.
Mansfield v Weetabix 1997
Drove the lorry into a shop owned by the claimant. Did not know that he had a condition causing brain malfunction so was not liable.
The courts take into account the mental/physical disabilities of the defendant.
Standard of care.
Dunnage v Randall 2015
Man poured petrol over himself and killed himself and burnt his nephew. Was paranoid schizophrenia. Was liable despite his illness. Had physical control over his actions.
Standard of care.
Bolton v Stone 1951
Stone was injured when struck by a cricket ball outside of his home. No liability for the club as a result of low likelihood of harm - had never happened before. Standard of care.
Perry v Harris 2008
Severe potential for harm - what they did fell below the standard of care to be expected. The bouncy castle was left unsupervised.
Latimer v AEC Limited 1953
No breach of duty as the defendant only has to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk.
Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd 1946
Standard of care - impacted by the social benefit of D’s activity. The driver signalled using his hand to help someone in an ambulance - as he was acting in public interest he has a lower standard of care.
Condon v Basi 1985
Social benefit is not conclusive. Broken leg during a football match. Standard of care expected from a football player.
Found that defendant was liable as the tackle was reckless even with regards the standard expected of local league player.
Re Herald of Free Enterprise 1987
Common practice. Despite it being common practice to set sail from Zeebrugge with the doors open, this still constituted negligence as it allowed water in. 193 people killed.
