Breach of duty of care Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Where does the objective test come from?

A

Blyth v birmingham water works

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the objective test…

A

Omitting to do something that a reasonable man would do, or doing something that a reasonable man would not do.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What standard will a professional be judged at?

A

The standards of a reasonable profession person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What standard will a trainee be judged at?

A

The standard of a reasonable fully qualified person (e.g learner driver judged to the standard of a qualified driver)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What standard will a child be judged at?

A

Standard of a reasonable child- Mullin v Richards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Factor 1 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably

A

Degree of risk involved. Greater risk = greater precautions required to be a reasonable person. Botton v Stone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Factor 2 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably

A

Cost of precautions. Won’t expect cost of precautions to outweigh risk. Reasonable person would take reasonable precautions. Latimer v AEC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Factor 3 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably

A

Potential seriousness of injury. More serious potential injury = greater level of care to be a reasonable person.
Paris v Stepney borough council

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Factor 4 to decide whether the defendant acted reasonably

A

Importance of the activity. Some risk may be acceptable if socially important. Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Bolam v Frien hospital management committee

A

Doctor didn’t give any relaxant, fracture. Professional judged by standard of reasonable person of that profession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Mullin v Richards

A

15 year olds fighting over ruler, one snapped and blinded the other. Child judged by standard of reasonable child

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Nettleship v Richards

A

Learner driver injured instructor. Trainees judged by standard of competent professional.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bolton v stone

A

Should club have taken more precautions to prevent injury outside grounds? Greater the risk the more precautions to be judged as a reasonable person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Latimer v AEC

A

Slipped on factory floor, D took necessary precautions. Court will not expect cost of precaution to outweigh risk.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

A

Injured by equipment not secured due to rush to save a life. Some risk acceptable if socially important

17
Q

The resulting damage must be caused by the…

A

Breach, i.e. would not have happened ‘but for’ the breach - Barnett v Chelsea Hospital

18
Q

The resulting damage must be not too remote from the…

A

Breach i.e. of a foreseeable type

19
Q

Do the chain of events need to be foreseeable?

A

No

20
Q

Do the extent of the damages need to be foreseeable?

A

No

21
Q

Barnett v Chelsea hospital

A

Doctor failed to examine man who was poisoned, if he had, he still couldn’t have saved him. Damage must be caused by breach

22
Q

Wagon Mound

A

Ship leaked oil leading to fire. Damage must be foreseeable type

23
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate

A

Unforeseeable explosion occurred causing injury. Precise chain of events leading to damage need not be foreseeable.

24
Q

Smith v Leech Brain

A

C incurred burn to lip due to D’s negligence, triggering cancer and death. Not necessary for extent of damage to be foreseeable.