Negligence: Breach of Duty Flashcards
What are the two stages of determining breach of duty in negligence?
- Determine the standard of care required by the defendant (a question of law).
- Assess whether the defendant has fallen below this standard (a question of fact).
How did Lord MacMillan in Glasgow Corporation v Muir (1943) describe the “reasonable man”?
The reasonable man is an objective standard, balanced between over-caution and recklessness.
Judges assess foreseeability based on what this reasonable person would anticipate in the specific circumstances.
What did Bolton v Stone (1951) establish about the likelihood of harm and breach of duty?
The standard of care does not require guarding against all risks, only those that are reasonably likely to occur.
How does the court assess the standard of care for learner drivers, as shown in Nettleship v Weston (1971)?
Learner drivers are judged by the same standard as qualified drivers, requiring them to meet the care expected of a competent motorist.
What is the Bolam test for professionals?
A professional is not negligent if their actions align with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals skilled in that field.
How does the Latimer v AEC (1952) case illustrate the principle of practicality of precautions?
A defendant only needs to take reasonable precautions, balancing the cost of preventing harm against its likelihood and seriousness.
How does Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954) address the utility of risky actions?
Risky actions can be justified if they serve a greater public or social purpose, provided they are not reckless or grossly negligent.
How does the standard of care for child defendants differ, as established in Mullins v Richards (1998)?
Child defendants are judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age, not an adult.
What does the principle of res ipsa loquitur mean, and which case established it?
“The thing speaks for itself.” It allows negligence to be presumed if an object under the defendant’s control causes harm that wouldn’t ordinarily occur without negligence (Scott v London & St Katherine’s Docks (1865)).
