Establishing Breach Flashcards
What is the general standard of care in negligence?
A) The best possible care
B) The care a reasonable person would take in the circumstances
C) The care that the defendant personally believes is sufficient
D) The minimum possible care
B) The care a reasonable person would take in the circumstances
In which case was the ‘reasonable person’ test established?
A) Donoghue v Stevenson
B) Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
C) Bolton v Stone
D) Caparo v Dickman
B) Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Which of the following factors is not considered when assessing breach of duty?
A) Likelihood of harm
B) The defendant’s level of experience
C) Magnitude of harm
D) The cost and practicality of precautions
B) The defendant’s level of experience
(Negligence is judged objectively based on the act, not the actor.)
What did the case of Bolton v Stone (1951) establish regarding breach of duty?
A) A defendant must take precautions against all risks
B) A very low likelihood of harm may not require precautions
C) Cricket clubs are always liable for injuries caused by cricket balls
D) The standard of care is different for sports-related injuries
B) A very low likelihood of harm may not require precautions
In which case was it held that even a small risk requires greater care if the potential harm is serious?
A) Paris v Stepney Borough Council
B) Latimer v AEC Ltd
C) Roe v Minister of Health
D) Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
A) Paris v Stepney Borough Council
A doctor performs a routine surgery but does not follow a widely accepted medical practice. What standard of care applies?
A) The care of an average person
B) The care of an ordinary doctor using the Bolam test
C) The care of a newly qualified doctor
D) The care of the most experienced doctor in the field
B) The care of an ordinary doctor using the Bolam test
(Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee established that a professional’s conduct is judged by whether they acted in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion.)
A factory floor becomes slippery due to heavy rain. The employer puts down sawdust but does not close the factory. An employee slips and is injured. Will the employer be liable?
A) Yes, because they failed to prevent all risks
B) No, because they took reasonable precautions
C) Yes, because workers should always be protected
D) No, because the employee should have been more careful
B) No, because they took reasonable precautions
(Latimer v AEC Ltd established that employers do not have to take extreme measures if reasonable precautions have been taken.)
A fire truck responding to an emergency runs a red light and hits a car. The driver of the car is injured. Is the fire service liable?
A) No, because they were responding to an emergency
B) Yes, because running a red light is always negligent
C) Yes, if running the red light posed an unreasonable risk
D) No, because emergency responders are immune from negligence claims
C) Yes, if running the red light posed an unreasonable risk
(Ward v London County Council (1938) established that emergency services can be liable if they act recklessly.)
What principle was established in Roe v Minister of Health regarding breach of duty?
A) A professional must act according to the best medical knowledge at the time of the trial
B) A defendant cannot be liable for risks that were unknown at the time of the incident
C) A claimant can always recover damages if they suffer harm
D) A hospital is automatically liable for medical errors
B) A defendant cannot be liable for risks that were unknown at the time of the incident
(The ‘state of the art’ defence: unforeseeable risks at the time cannot lead to liability.)
Why was the defendant not liable in Bolton v Stone but liable in Haley v London Electricity Board?
A) The risk was much greater in Haley v London Electricity Board
B) The defendants were from different industries
C) The courts applied different legal tests
D) The claimants had different levels of injury
A) The risk was much greater in Haley v London Electricity Board
(In Bolton v Stone, the risk of a cricket ball hitting a passerby was very low, whereas in Haley, it was foreseeable that blind pedestrians would be affected.)
Under the Compensation Act 2006, when assessing breach of duty, courts can consider whether…
A) The defendant was acting in a socially beneficial manner
B) The defendant intended to cause harm
C) The defendant was inexperienced
D) The defendant had a valid insurance policy
A) The defendant was acting in a socially beneficial manner
(Section 1 allows courts to consider the deterrent effect on beneficial activities.)
A hospital follows common industry practice in storing medication, but a new study reveals their storage method is unsafe. A patient is harmed. Is the hospital liable?
A) Yes, because they failed to prevent the harm
B) No, because they followed industry practice
C) No, if the risk was unknown at the time of the incident
D) Yes, if the new study was available before the incident
C) No, if the risk was unknown at the time of the incident
(Roe v Minister of Health: liability depends on what was known at the time, not new discoveries.)
A 13-year-old throws a snowball, hitting a pedestrian in the eye. Is the child held to the same standard as an adult?
A) Yes, because negligence law applies equally to all
B) No, the child is held to the standard of a reasonable 13-year-old
C) No, the child cannot be sued for negligence
D) Yes, but they will not have to pay damages
B) No, the child is held to the standard of a reasonable 13-year-old
(Mullin v Richards established that children are judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age.)
A footballer deliberately kicks an opponent off the ball, causing serious injury. Can the injured player sue for negligence?
A) No, because they assumed the risk of injury in the sport
B) Yes, because the action was reckless and outside the rules of the game
C) No, because injuries in football are unavoidable
D) Yes, but only if the referee issued a red card
B) Yes, because the action was reckless and outside the rules of the game
(Watson v Gray: reckless disregard for another player’s safety can amount to negligence.)
A construction company is demolishing a building in a busy city center. They place warning signs and barriers around the site, but debris unexpectedly falls onto a nearby street, injuring a pedestrian. The company argues that it took reasonable precautions. Is the company likely to be liable?
A) No, because they took some precautions
B) Yes, if the risk of debris falling was foreseeable and additional precautions were reasonable
C) No, because demolition is inherently dangerous and some risks cannot be eliminated
D) Yes, because any harm caused automatically leads to liability
B) Yes, if the risk of debris falling was foreseeable and additional precautions were reasonable
🔹 Explanation:
Liability depends on whether the company took sufficient precautions to prevent foreseeable harm.
The likelihood and magnitude of harm are high (urban area, risk of serious injury).
The practicality of precautions is key—could they have done more (e.g., netting, scaffolding, restricted access)?
The court would balance the risk against the cost and effort of precautions (Latimer v AEC Ltd).
If more precautions were reasonably expected, the company breached its duty of care.
