Breach of duty of care Flashcards
what 4 things do we establish negligence with?
voluntary act or omission of the defender
The harm must be the reasonable and probable consequence of the defender’s conduct
The act or omission must constitute negligence
remoteness of injury
voluntary act or omission of the defender.
describe what this is.
what is the case law for this?
the act or omission of the defender must be voluntary on the part of the defender.
this is shown in Waugh v James K Allan Ltd
lorry driver passes out behind the wheel, his act was involuntary because he had no reason to anticipate a heart attack therefore acted reasonably after he felt better.
the defenders act or omission must have as its reasonable and probable consequence harm to the pursuer.
describe what this means?
what is the case law for this?
harm to the pursuer must be a reasonable and probable consequence of the defenders actions. aka they can only be liable for their actions if a reasonable man would have foreseen it also. but this was not the case in this case.
Muir v Glasgow Corpn
tea spilled on children.
Malcolm v Dicksen
painter caught house on fire, man inside exhausted himself by removing furniture thus created heart attack but did not die of the fumes so would not be reasonable to force him dying by moving the furniture.
The act or omission must constitute negligence. describe it
if the defenders conduct falls bellow the standard of the reasonable person then they are liable. there may be no breach of duty even if the damage was foreseeable and probable and reasonable consequence of the defenders conduct.
what are the 6 things that establish standard of care?
probability of injury to the pursuer. seriousness of injury to the pursuer utility of the activity practicability of precautions cost of precautions practice of other persons in the same business as the defender.
standard of care- probability of injury to the pursuer. describe and case law
where the probability of injury is so improbable that a reasonable person would not have taken any precautions.
Bolton v stone
cricket ball hit someone. 6 occasions in previous 30 years no-one had been injured
standard of care- seriousness of injury to the pursuer. describe and case law
the seriousness of the injury is a relevant factor.
Paris v Stephney Borough Council
only one eye and not supplied with goggles.
removing rusty bolt from a car.
standard of care- utility of the activity.
describe and case law
they should do everything in the circumstances that they are required to do and in these circumstances they should not fall bellow the reasonable standard of care required.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
reasonable employer would have used the lorry with the jack in those circumstances even though it trapped a fire fighter.
standard of care-practicability of precautions.
describe and case law
only to use precautions when they are able to reduce the risk of harm.
Quinn v Cameron and Roberton Ltd.
pursuer developed pneumoconiosis but the danger was not known to the company at the time.
standard of care- cost of precautions
describe and case law.
the cost of precautions balanced against the risk of harm
Latimer v AEC Ltd
floor became slippery, put down sawdust, someone slipped, but factory owner was reasonable.
standard of care- practice of other persons in the same business as the defender.
case and describe hi cutie
Brown v Rolls Royce Ltd.
did not use the common practice in business but used their own so therefore it was not a breach of duty of care.
to check if other businesses in the same position use the same standard of care in the workplace to get an indication of the standard of care.
Remoteness of injury
Describe it.
case law
hi cutie
delictual liability was too remote.
Bourhill v Young
mental harm she suffered was too remote.
