Breach of duty of care Flashcards
Where does the objective test come from?
Blyth v birmingham water works
What is the objective test…
Omitting to do something that a reasonable man would do, or doing something that a reasonable man would not do.
What standard will a professional be judged at?
The standards of a reasonable profession person.
What standard will a trainee be judged at?
The standard of a reasonable fully qualified person (e.g learner driver judged to the standard of a qualified driver)
What standard will a child be judged at?
Standard of a reasonable child- Mullin v Richards
Factor 1 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably
Degree of risk involved. Greater risk = greater precautions required to be a reasonable person. Botton v Stone
Factor 2 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably
Cost of precautions. Won’t expect cost of precautions to outweigh risk. Reasonable person would take reasonable precautions. Latimer v AEC
Factor 3 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably
Potential seriousness of injury. More serious potential injury = greater level of care to be a reasonable person.
Paris v Stepney borough council
Factor 4 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably
Importance of the activity. Some risk may be acceptable if socially important. Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Bolam v Frien hospital management committee
Doctor didn’t give any relaxant, fracture. Professional judged by standard of reasonable person of that profession
Mullin v Richards
15 year olds fighting over ruler, one snapped and blinded the other. Child judged by standard of reasonable child
Nettleship v Richards
Learner driver injured instructor. Trainees judged by standard of competent professional.
Bolton v stone
Should club have taken more precautions to prevent injury outside grounds? Greater the risk the more precautions to be judged as a reasonable person.
Latimer v AEC
Slipped on factory floor, D took necessary precautions. Court will not expect cost of precaution to outweigh risk.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Only one eye, blinded by splinter, did not provide safety goggles. More serious potential injury = greater level of care required to be the reasonable person.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Injured by equipment not secured due to rush to save a life. Some risk acceptable if socially important
The resulting damage must be caused by the…
Breach, i.e. would not have happened ‘but for’ the breach - Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
The resulting damage must be not too remote from the…
Breach i.e. of a foreseeable type
Do the chain of events need to be foreseeable?
No
Do the extent of the damages need to be foreseeable?
No
Barnett v Chelsea hospital
Doctor failed to examine man who was poisoned, if he had, he still couldn’t have saved him. Damage must be caused by breach
Wagon Mound
Ship leaked oil leading to fire. Damage must be foreseeable type
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Unforeseeable explosion occurred causing injury. Precise chain of events leading to damage need not be foreseeable.
Smith v Leech Brain
C incurred burn to lip due to D’s negligence, triggering cancer and death. Not necessary for extent of damage to be foreseeable.
