LIABILITY: NEGLIGENCE; Breach Of Duty

Question 1

What case shows costs and practicality of taking precautions? (1)

Answer 1

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

Question 2

What is meant by res ipsa loquitor? (1)

Answer 2

Let the thing speak for itself

Question 3

What is meant by social utility? (1)

Answer 3

The more useful an act is to society the less likely a breach occurs

Question 4

What case shows social utility? (1)

Answer 4

Watt v Hertfordshire county council (1954)

Question 5

What is meant by cost and practicality of taking precautions? (1)

Answer 5

The cheaper and easier it is to protect against harm the more likely you have breached your duty.

Question 6

What occurred in the case watt v Hertfordshire county council (1954)? (3)

Answer 6

Claimant was a fireman. Woman involved in a traffic accident which required a lorry jack to save, the fire chief ordered the claimant and other firemen to put the jack on the back of the truck without securing it. The truck braced and the jack fell off, injuring the claimant. There was no breach of duty. The social utility outweighed the injury.

Question 7

What case can be used for seriousness of injury/magnitude? (1)

Answer 7

Paris V Stepney borough council (1951)

Question 8

What occurred in the case Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)? (3)

Answer 8

A factory became flooded and the floor was very slippery with a mixture of water and oil. Saw dust was spread over the floor to minimise the risk of workers slipping. Despite this a worker slipped, the court held that there was no breach of duty the only way to completely prevent injury was to close the factory which was unreasonable.

Question 9

What occurred in the case Paris v Stepney borough council (1951)? (2)

Answer 9

The claimant was blind in one eye and was given work that involved a small risk of eye injury. His left eyes was damaged causing him to become totally blind. Employers were held to have breached their duty.

Question 10

What is meant by seriousness of injury/magnitude? (2)

Answer 10

No account is generally taken of peculiarities of the defendant apart age. If the defendant is vulnerable is anyway it can help in determining appropriate level of care.

Question 11

What must taken into account when looking at their likelihood of harm/probability factor? (1)

Answer 11

The degree of risk; the risk must be foreseeable, if the risk of harm was not known or is very small there will not be a breach.

Question 12

What occurred in the case of Bolton v stone (1951)? (3)

Answer 12

A cricket ball hit a passer by on a street the gate around was 17ft tall. The ball was rarely hit out of the pitch in the 30 years it was open, because the likelihood of harm to members of the public was so small there was no breach of duty.

Question 13

What occurred in the case Roe v minister of health (1954)? (3)

Answer 13

Anaesthetic was kept in glass tubes, because of slow medical advancements it was not known that small microscopic cracks could occur and therefore contamination. The claimant became paralysed but the court held that there was no breach as it was not known it could occur.

Question 14

What occurred in the case Miller v Jackson (1977)? (2)

Answer 14

A ball travelled out the pitch 8/9 times each season. Held, the defendants were liable and should have taken precautions to prevent. The defendant breached his duty as the extent was higher than Bolton (1951)

Question 15

What occurred in the case Mullin v Richard’s (1998)? (3)

Answer 15

Two 15 year old girls were having a sword fight with plastic rulers. One of the rulers snapped and a piece went into the claimants eye causing permanent damage. Defendant claimed but was dismissed court held that there was insufficient evidence as it was a childish act.

Question 16

What case shows the degree of risk in the likelihood of harm/probability factor? (1)

Answer 16

Roe v Minister of health (1954)

Question 17

What case can be used for likelihood of harm/ probability? (1)

Answer 17

Bolton v stone (1951)

Question 18

What case shows the standard of care for child defendants? (1)

Answer 18

Mullin v Richard’s (1998)

Question 19

What case contrasts the likelihood of harm/probability factor? (1)

Answer 19

Miller v Jackson (1977)

Question 20

What factors are used to determine breach in duty? (4)

Answer 20

Likelihood of harm/probability
Seriousness/magnitude of injury
Cost and practicality of taking precautions
Social utility of act/value of conduct

Question 21

What is the standard of care for child defendants? (1)

Answer 21

The standard of care is very low and teenagers are not expected to have the same standard of care as adults unless doing adult activities.

Question 22

When can standard practice be used as a defence? (1)

Answer 22

May only be claimed as a defence to an action only if the practice is a good practice.

Question 23

What occurred in the case Bolitho v city and Hackney (1997)? (3)

Answer 23

The health authority contended sometimes methods are illogical. A child was under observation in a hospital and just suffered two partial respiratory failures. Consultant was called but did not arrive until after the 3rd attack. Question was ‘would that particular doctor have intubated?’ The answer was no so no duty breached.

Question 24

What occurred in the case Herald free enterprise (1987)? (3)

Answer 24

A ferry left the port with the bow doors still open, it was hit by a wave and took on water. It sank and killed many people. Defendants claimed the standard practice was not to check for closure of doors. Standard practise was not good therefore court held negligence.

Question 25

What were the problems with the bolam test? (1)

Answer 25

Anyone could find a professional body to agree with their methods but that does mean that it was a good method.

Question 26

What occurred I the case Bolam v Fiern Barnett hospital management committee (1957)? (4)

Answer 26

Claimant agreed to undergo shock treatment for mental illness, he suffered fractures and sued the hospital as he was not warned of the risk and should have been given relaxant drugs (controversy at the time). Held, so long as there was a respectable body of expert opinion to support action of the defendant they would not be negligent.

Question 27

What case shows the use of standard practice defence? (1)

Answer 27

Herald free enterprise (1987)

Question 28

What is the bolam test also called? (1)

Answer 28

Also called the prudent doctor test.

Question 29

What must you use when determining a breach of duty? (2)

Answer 29

Use the Bolam test first and then look for logical reasoning with Bolitho.

Question 30

What does the case of nettleship and Weston (1971) state? (2)

Answer 30

Lord Denning ‘the learner driver may be doing his best, but his incompetent best is not good enough. He must drive in as good of manner as a driver of skill, experience and care.’

Question 31

What case did the Bolitho test stem from? (1)

Answer 31

Bolitho v city and Hackney (1997)

Question 32

Where did the reasonable man test stem from? (1)

Answer 32

Glasgow corporation v Muir (1943)

Question 33

What does the case Blyth v Birmingham waterworks co (1856) state? (1)

Answer 33

States that the characteristics of the defendant are not taken into account.

Question 34

What case states the consideration of personal characteristics? (1)

Answer 34

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks co (1856)

Question 35

What case did the Bolam test stem from? (1)

Answer 35

Bolam v Fiern Barnett hospital management committee (1957)

Question 36

What happens if the defendant falls below the standard of care? (1)

Answer 36

Then they have breached their duty (compared to the standard of the reasonable man) this is called the reasonable man test.

Question 37

What must the claimant prove? (1)

Answer 37

Once a duty has been established, the claimant then had to prove that it had been broken.

Question 38

How do the courts determine whether a duty has been breached? (1)

Answer 38

The courts will first consider the degree of risk and decide the standard of care expected.

Question 39

What does the case of Glasgow corporation v Muir (1943) state? (1)

Answer 39

‘The reasonable man does not suffer from personal quirks and exhibits neither over-confidence nor over-cautiousness’

Question 40

What is the reasonable man test? (1)

Answer 40

The reasonable man is an unbiased, non officiated viewpoint we hold the defendant to this.