Breach of Duty of Care

Question 1

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 1

Objective test for breach of duty of care. So generally, what D thought and their characteristics are not relevant

Question 2

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

Answer 2

General test for breach of duty of care is ‘but for’

Question 3

Mullin v Richards

Answer 3

Age and gender ARE taken into account when assessing what the objective standard of care owed is - so had to assess whether a 15 year old girl in D’s situation would have realised that the ruler might shatter

Question 4

Phillips v Whiteley

Answer 4

What D’s duty to take reasonable care is depends on the CONTEXT of the situation - so a lower standard of care is owed for a piercing than an operation performed in a hospital

Question 5

Other Relevant Factors in Assessment of Whether D Breached Duty of Care

Answer 5

1) Timing
2) Likelihood of harm
3) Gravity of harm
4) Cost of precautions
5) Context
6) Emergency

Question 6

Roe v Minister of Health

Answer 6

The assessment of whether D breached his duty must be made at the time of the alleged breach - cannot use the benefit of hindsight

Question 7

Maga v Birmingham Roman Catholic Archdiocese

Answer 7

Court also must assess whether D breached his duty of care during the knowledge/standards of that time period - it was not widely known in the 1970s that the Catholic church had institutional child sex abuse like it was in 2010, so the standards had to be assessed based on the 1970s time period

Question 8

Bolton v Stone

Answer 8

The less likely the damage is to occur to C, the less likely it is that D has breached their duty of care. Here, the cricket ball was very unlikely to be hit out of the stadium, so D had not breached their duty of care by not erecting a high fence outside of the stadium, because it was highly unlikely it would ever be hit out of the stadium

Question 9

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Answer 9

Gravity of harm is also a relevant factor for whether D breached his duty of care - the more grave the potential harm is, the more likely D is to have breached their duty of care

Question 10

Latimer v AEC

Answer 10

Cost of precautions is also a relevant factor. The court must have regard to the cost of D taking certain precautions in whether they breached their duty - cannot assume that D has high levels of resources, and it is instead what resources the average body would have available

Question 11

Woolridge v Summer

Answer 11

Standard of care depends on the circumstances such as the level or standard of the sport being played. Higher standard of care is owed to PL footballers than amateur players, so it is easier for D to have breached this duty with PL footballers

Question 12

Blake v Galloway

Answer 12

If C has consented to the risk of injury (in a game), then D’s standard of care owed is lower, so is more difficult to breach

Question 13

Watt v Hertfordshire CC

Answer 13

If the situation is a life-threatening one, then the emergency of it and utility of D’s conduct outweighs the need to take precautions. So in these situations, it is less likely that D will have breached their duty of care

Question 14

King v Sussex Ambulance Trust

Answer 14

Ambulance service owes the same level of duty as any other employer does to its employees - the standard of care owed by employers does NOT depend on the profession

Question 15

s.1 Compensation Act 2003

Answer 15

s.1 provides that in assessing whether D should have taken steps to meet their standard of care, the court should take into account whether requiring them to take those steps might prevent desirable activities from taking place

Question 16

Sutton v Syston RFC

Answer 16

Rugby matches are desirable under s.1 Compensation Act 2003, so it was held to be important NOT to set the standard so high as to discourage clubs from facilitating matches

Question 17

Social Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015

Answer 17

s. 1 provides that the Act is about what steps D should have taken to meet their standard of care
s. 2 provides that the court must take into account whether D was acting for the benefit of society/others in society
s. 4 - court needs to take into account whether D was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency/assisting someone in danger

Question 18

Baker v Quantum Clothing

Answer 18

Relevant to consider the health and safety regulations for the particular industry in determining whether the employer breached their duty towards their employee

Question 19

Chipchase v British Titan Products

Answer 19

Court must consider the standard of duty owed independently of any statutory regulations - so statutory regulations are NOT relevant

Question 20

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Answer 20

When assessing the standard of reasonable care for medical cases, there may be multiple proper standards taken by doctors. Not a single standard owed by doctors.

BUT it the procedure chosen must be done in accordance with accepted practice by a medical body

Question 21

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA

Answer 21

But, just because doctors can have different views about the best medical choice, it does not mean that the courts cannot intervene and find a doctor as having breached their duty of care. Essential for experts to show that they have weighed up risks and benefits of a procedure, where appropriate

Question 22

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

Answer 22

There is different rule regarding disclosure of risks to a patient - if the doctor fails to provide the material risks, then they have breached their duty of care. Focus on patient autonomy and rights justified departing from traditional but for test here

Question 23

Moy v Pettman Smith

Answer 23

Barristers are not subject to the same high standard that doctors are in disclosure of risk/explaining what course of action to recommend - this is because they are paid for their opinion, not their doubts. cf. to doctors