Breach Of Duty And Causation

Question 1

What does the court consider in cases of breach of duty?

Answer 1

Whether D failed to meet the expected standard of care

The standard is assessed based on the reasonable man in the same circumstances as D.

Question 2

What is the standard expected of a defendant in breach of duty cases?

Answer 2

The standard of the reasonable man

This is established in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks.

Question 3

True or False: In cases involving learner drivers, the court makes allowances for inexperience.

Answer 3

False

In Nettleship v Weston, a learner driver was judged by the standard of a reasonable driver.

Question 4

In cases involving children, what consideration is made regarding the standard of care?

Answer 4

Allowance is made for their age and experience

This is illustrated in Mullin v Richards, where a 15-year-old’s actions were judged against a reasonable child of similar age.

Question 5

How are professionals judged in breach of duty cases?

Answer 5

Against the standard of a reasonable competent professional in that field

This standard is established in Bolam v Friern for doctors.

Question 6

What was clarified in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority regarding the Bolam test?

Answer 6

The practice of a reasonable body of medical opinion must be responsible and capable of logical analysis

This modification ensures that medical opinions are not just accepted without scrutiny.

Question 7

How are junior doctors judged in breach of duty cases?

Answer 7

By the same standard as a qualified doctor

This principle is established in Wilsher v Essex AHA.

Question 8

What 4 factors will the court consider when deciding standard of care in circumstances.

Answer 8

Likelihood of harm or injury.
Seriousness of consequences
Cost of reasonable precautions
Social utility

Question 9

What case was likelihood of harm low and what case was it high?

(Hint: cricket. Football)

Answer 9

BOLTON V STONE in a cricket game the fence had only been cleared 6 times in 28 years so the court held D had taken reasonable precautions for the small risk so NO breach of duty

HILDER V ASSOCIATED PORTLND CEMENT: D allowed children to play football on waste ground with low wall behind goal. Balls often went over wall into road. Motorcycle was hit by football. D DID break duty as didn’t take precautions for large risk

Question 10

In what case was Seriousness of consequence high

Answer 10

PARIS V STEPNEY BC: C was blind in one eye. D was in breach of duty as they didn’t give him eye protection at work . Harm was foreseeable

Question 11

In what case was cost of reasonable precautions high.

Answer 11

LATIMER V AEC: D put put down as much sawdust as they could after a flood in factory. C slipped on an untreated area and was injured. Court held no breach of duty as D had taken reasonable precautions and closing factory is disproportionally expensive

Question 12

Social utility: in what case was social utility too high so the d did not owe a duty of care.

Answer 12

Watt v herts CC

Question 13

Social utility: in what case was social utility too high so the d did not owe a duty of care.

Answer 13

Watt v herts CC

Question 14

What is factual causation?

Answer 14

Facial causation is satisfied if the damage suffered by C would not have happend “BUT FOR” Ds breach of duty

Question 15

Give an example of where the “but for” rule occurred (factual causation)

Answer 15

Barnett v Chelsea hospital.
The victim who had arsenic poisoning was sent home by doctor and died.
As patient would’ve died anyway despite hospitals breach of duty. Therefore factual causation is not present.

Question 16

Novus actus interveniens

Answer 16

Even if the “but for” test is satisfied, the chain of causation linking the breach of duty with the damage suffered by C can be broken in when a new act intervenes in one of the 3 following ways.

Intervening act of claimant- mckew and Holland

Intervening act of nature- carslogie steamship Co v Royal Norwegian government.

Intervening act of 3rd party- knightly v jones

Question 17

What are the 3 novus actus interveniens

Answer 17

Intervening act of claimant

Intervening act of nature

Intervening act of 3rd party

Question 18

What is legal causation- remoteness of damages

Answer 18

Defendant will only be liable for damage that is reasonably forseeable. If the damage is not reasonably foreseeable it’s classed as “too remote”

Question 19

What are the 3 situations where legal causation can be satisfied even if not reasonably forseeable?

Answer 19

Type of damage- if the general type of damage is reasonably foreseeable then it does not matter if specific damage is not

Sequence of events- if the type of damage that results from C’s breach of duty is reasonably foreseeable, it does not matter if the exact sequence of events leading to the damage is not.

The ‘eggshell skull’ rule: as long as some damage is foreseeable, D will be liable for its full extent, even if this could not be foreseen. This also applied to property damage.

Question 20

Give an example of where type of damage caused lead to legal causation being satisfied

Answer 20

Bradford v Robinson rentals- Ds DID breach duty when providing C with a van with no heating in freezing conditions. D was liable for Cs frostbite as cold related injuries were foreseeable even if frostbite was not.

Question 21

Give an example of when sequence of events led to legal causation being satisfied

Answer 21

Hugh’s v lord advocate- Ds did breach duty of care by leaving paraffin lamps unattended next to hole in the road they had been working on.

Ds were liable for C’s burn injuries as that type of damage was foreseeable when paraffin lamps were left unattended, even if the exact sequence of events that occurred was not (Cs climbed into the hole and knocked a lamp over, causing an explosion).

Question 22

Give an example of when the “eggshell skull rule” lead to legal causation being satisfied.

Answer 22

Smith v Leech Brain - it WAS foreseeable that Ds’ breach of duty could cause C’s husband a minor burn so they were also responsible for the cancer that developed leading to his ultimate death, even tho Cs husband was pre-disposed to develop cancers