General Negligence-Breach

Question 1

What is the standard of care required to avoid breach?

Answer 1

Standard of a “reasonable man” in the circumstances

Question 2

Case for standard of a reasonable man.

Answer 2

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)

Question 3

Case for where the D had reached the standard expected of a reasonable man.

Answer 3

Wells v Cooper (1954) - windy weather, door handled pulled too hard

Question 4

Does being a learner reduce the standard expected?

Answer 4

No

Question 5

Case for learners having the same standard of care as the reasonable man.

Answer 5

Nettleship v Weston (1971)-learner driver hit lamppost, injured instructor

Question 6

What was the standard expected of the learner driver in Nettleship?

Answer 6

That of a reasonably competent driver

Question 7

What are the 2 variations on the reasonable man?

Answer 7

Professionals
Young people

Question 8

What standard are professionals expected to reached?

Answer 8

Standard of a reasonably competent professional in their field

Question 9

Case for professionals standard of care

Answer 9

Bolam (1957)

Question 10

When can professional not be in breach as per the principle from Bolam?

Answer 10

Where the procedure is supported by a “substantial body of opinion” within the profession

Question 11

When can there still be liability for professional who have followed standard procedure?

Answer 11

If the courts believe the procedure is wrong

Question 12

Case for when the courts believe standard procedure is wrong

Answer 12

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority (1997)

Question 13

Standard expected of young people

Answer 13

Standard of a reasonable person of that age

Question 14

Case for standard of care of young people.

Answer 14

Mullin v Richards (1998)-play fighting ruler, loss of sight, no breach

Question 15

4 circumstances which raise/lower the standard of care expected. AKA risk factors.

Answer 15

1. Special characteristics of the claimant
2. A very small risk
3. Benefits of taking the risk
4. Reasonably minimal cost precautions have been taken

Question 16

Case for special characteristics of the claimant.

Answer 16

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951).

Question 17

Facts of Paris

Answer 17

Garage fitter lost sight in seeing eye after metal chip got in it.
Employer should have given goggles.
Since he was already blind in 1 eye a higher standard was expected

Question 18

Case for a very small risk.

Answer 18

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Question 19

Facts of Bolton

Answer 19

Batsman hit ball over protective fence and hit a woman.
Ball had only been hit out ground in that direction 6x in past 30 years.
Court decided risk of injury was so small that reasonable man would not take into account so not liability

Question 20

Case for benefits of taking the risk

Answer 20

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

Question 20

Facts of Watt

Answer 20

Firemen called to rescue woman trapped under heavy vehicle.
Firefighters injured lifting gear into vehicle not designed for it (correct vehicle out on another job).
Council did not break DoC as risk to the trapped woman outweighed risk to firemen

Question 21

What will the court do when there are benefits to taking the risk?

Answer 21

Balance the risk against the measures

Question 22

What situation might be considered benefit to taking the risk?

Answer 22

A community activity e.g. sports, Bolton v Stone

Question 23

Case for reasonably minimal cost precautions have been taken.

Answer 23

Latimer v AEC (1952)

Question 24

Facts of Latimer.

Answer 24

D’s factory flooded and floor was slippery.
D put up warning signs, passed message around workforce and used sand and sawdust to dry floor as best they could.
C slipped and injured, nonetheless.
Company not liable as they had taken all practical precautions