Negligence, Breach of Duty Flashcards
What is the reasonable person test?
When the actions od the defendant are compared to the actions of another compatent person.
How are the actions of professionals tested, and what case shows this?
Measured against the standard of reasonable professionals.
Bolam v Friern Barnett Hospital (1957):
C was undergoing electro convulsive therapy as treatment for his mental illness. The doctor decided not to use relaxant drugs, causing the claimant to suffer a serious fracture. There was a divided opinion between professionals as to whether drugs should be given. When given, theres a small risk of death, but when not given there is a risk of fractures.
How are the actions tested for learners, and what case shows this?
Learners’ actions are measured against those competent in that skill (not as a learner).
Nettleship v Weston (1971):
D was a learner driver who took lessons from a friend (the C). One lesson, D failed to straighten the wheel on a bend and crashed into a lamp post after panicking. C fractured his knee.
What are the actions of children and young people compared to and what case shows this?
Measured against other children of the same age.
Mullin v Richards (1998):
Two kids were fighting with plastic rules. One of the rulers shattered and went in one of the kids’ eyes, blinding them in that eye.
What are the different risk factors?
Does the claimant have special characteristics?
What is the size of the risk?
Have all precautions been taken?
Is there a public benefit to taking the risk?
What is it meant by special characteristics?
If the claimaint is vulnerable, it may be reasonable for D to get more precautions.
What is a case that gives an example of special characteristics?
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951):
C was blind in one eye due to an injury sustained in a war. During his garage hand job, a splinter of metal went into his sighted eye causing complete blindness. The employer did not supply any workers with safety goggles to wear. There was a breach of duty as the seriousness of the harm to him would have been greater than that experienced by any normal worker.
Since the larger the risk=more precautions need to be taken, then what is a case where precautions were taken?
Bolton v Stone (1951):
C was injured after a ball from a neighbouring cricket pitch flew into her outside her home. This was a very rare occurance as the fence was very high and there had been only a few occurances of a ball flying out over a course of a few decades. They were not in breach of their duty.
Appropriate precautions: The courts will consider the balances of risk against the cost of taking adequate precautions. Give a case example of this.
Latimer v AEC (1953):
C worked in D’s factory and slipped on the floor, injuring himself. The factory was flooded because of weather conditions. The D put up warning signs around the factory, mopped up and placed sawdust in most used areas to make it as safe as possible. There was no breach of duty as the appropriate precautions were taken.
Unknown risks: If D does not know that a risk exists, there may not have been a breach of duty. Give a case example of this.
Roe v Ministry of Health (1954):
Two cs were given anaesthetic for minor operations. It was contaminated with sterilising fluid, resulting in both claimants becoming permanently paralysed. It was contaminated during storage where there were miniacule cracks in the containers that were not visible with the human eye. There had been no breach of duty.
Public benefit (social utility):
Courts allow greater risks to be taken in emergencies. They are realistic and accept when quick action is needed. Give a case example of this happening.
Watt V hertfordshire County Council (1954):
The claimant was a fireman. A woman had a car accident and was trapped under a lorry. This was around 200-300 yards away from the fire station. Fire services were called. They needed to transport a heavy lorry jack to the scene. Jack wouldn’t fit on the fire truck and the normal vehicle used to carry it was not available. The firemen were told to hold it in place at the back of a truck without securing it. The truck braked and the jack fell on C’s leg causing severe injuries. There was no breach of duty as it was an emergency.
