Breach of the duty Flashcards
Objective test based on the reasonable person
The reasonable person is an ordinary person who is able to perform the task competently
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
Established reasonable man test
Facts: D installed a fireplug near C’s house, it failed due to severe frost causing flood damage
Held: The frost couldn’t have been in the contemplation of the water works. It would be unreasonable for them to anticipate such a rare occurrence.
Nettleship v Weston
Facts: D was a learner driver taking lessons from a friend, her insurance covered them. She hit a lamppost and C fractured his knee.
Held: Learners are required to meet the same standard as a reasonable qualified driver so D owed a DOC and was liable
Unknown risks
If the risk is unknown then there is no breach of duty
Roe v Minister of health
Facts: 2 claimant’s had been given an anaesthetic for minor ops but it was contaminated during storage resulting in them to be permanently paralysed
Held: No breach, the risk wasn’t foreseeable as it was an unknown risk at the time
Degree of probability that harm will be done
Care must be taken in respect of a risk where it is reasonably foreseeable harm will be done
Bolton v Stone
Facts: C was hit by a cricket ball which cleared a 17ft fence over 100yrds. Evidence showed that a ball had only been hit out the ground 6 times in 30 years
Held: Not to be negligent as the risk was so small that the reasonable man would have been justified in disregarding it
The magnitude of likely harm of the claimant
In this test, courts consider not only the risk of harm but also how serious the injury could be
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Facts: C was blind in one eye, he was given work to do which involved a small risk of injury to the eyes. He wasn’t given goggles, his good eye was damaged and became completely blind.
Held: Breach of duty, employer should’ve provided goggles because the seriousness of harm to him was greater than his co workers with full sight.
Public benefit/emergency
If there’s an emergency greater risks can be taken and a lower standard of care expected.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Facts: C was a firefighter who was injured by equipment falling on him during an emergency journey to put out a fire, due to the haste to get there
Held: No breach as it was an emergency situation and the need to save a life outweighed the need to take precautions
Cost and practicality of preventing risk
Court looks at whether D could’ve taken precautions
Latimer v AEC
Facts: C worked in D’s factory and slipped on the floor. The factory was flooded due to weather conditions. D had warning signs, mopped and placed sawdust to make it as safe as possible.
Held: No breach, D only had to take reasonable precautions which he had done
