Negligence: Breach of duty Flashcards
What must a claimant prove to establish a breach of duty in negligence, and what are the two stages of the test for breach of duty?
To prove a breach of duty, the claimant must show that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. The two-stage test is:
- Determining the standard of care: Assess what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances (a question of law).
- Evaluating the defendant’s conduct: Decide whether the defendant’s actions fell below this standard (a question of fact).
Example: In a car accident, if one driver was speeding and failed to exercise reasonable care, this could constitute a breach.
How does the case Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) define negligence, and what does it establish about the reasonable person standard?
In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, negligence is defined as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man… would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” It establishes that the reasonable person standard is objective, requiring actions consistent with what an average, prudent person would do in the same situation.
Describe the nature of the “reasonable person” test in negligence law and how it excludes the defendant’s personal characteristics.
The “reasonable person” test assesses whether the defendant acted as an average, prudent person would in the same circumstances. It is objective, excluding the defendant’s personal characteristics, intelligence, or intent.
Example: A driver who unexpectedly suffers a heart attack may not breach their duty, as a reasonable driver without foreknowledge of their condition would not foresee this.
When is the reasonable person standard adjusted, and how was this applied in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)?
The standard is adjusted for skilled defendants. In Bolam, the court held that a doctor must show the skill and care expected of a reasonable doctor in their field. The defendant was not negligent as their treatment was supported by a responsible body of professional opinion. This principle applies to all professionals with special skills
How does the law judge the standard of care for inexperienced defendants, as shown in Nettleship v Weston (1971)?
In Nettleship v Weston, a learner driver was held to the same standard of care as a competent driver. The court ruled that the standard of care is objective, regardless of the defendant’s inexperience. Liability insurance mitigates the harshness of this rule by spreading the risk.
How is the standard of care adjusted for children, and what was the court’s finding in Mullin v Richards (1998)?
For children, the standard of care is adjusted to reflect the behavior of a reasonable child of the same age. In Mullin v Richards, two 15-year-old schoolgirls engaged in a mock sword fight with plastic rulers, and the injury caused was not considered a breach of duty, as an ordinary 15-year-old would not foresee serious harm in this situation.
How does the likelihood of harm affect the standard of care, as demonstrated in Bolton v Stone (1951)?
In Bolton v Stone, the risk of harm was deemed so small (only six balls had been hit out of the cricket ground in 30 years) that additional precautions were unnecessary. The court ruled that a defendant may ignore small risks if a reasonable person would find them negligible.
How does the severity of potential harm influence the required standard of care, as illustrated in Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)?
In Paris v Stepney Borough Council, the employer breached their duty by not providing safety goggles to a worker already blind in one eye. The potential harm (total blindness) was so severe that greater precautions were required, even if the risk of injury was low.
How do cost and practicality affect the determination of breach, as shown in Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)?
In Latimer v AEC Ltd, the defendant spread sawdust on a slippery factory floor but did not have enough to cover all areas. The court ruled no breach occurred because the risk of injury was slight, and the cost of completely eliminating the risk (closing the factory) was disproportionate.
Can a defendant’s lack of financial resources excuse them from meeting the standard of care?
No, lack of resources is not an excuse. A defendant is expected to meet the standard of care required in the circumstances, regardless of their financial situation. For example, in cases involving high risks, courts expect reasonable precautions even if costly.
How does social utility influence liability, as demonstrated in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)?
In Watt v Hertfordshire County Council, a fireman was injured while transporting equipment on an unsuitable vehicle during an emergency. The court ruled that the risk was justified due to the public interest in saving a life. However, defendants must still take reasonable precautions even in emergencies.
Can compliance with common practice absolve a defendant of liability? What exception exists, as seen in Re The Herald of Free Enterprise (1987)?
Compliance with common practice is strong evidence against negligence, but it is not conclusive. In Re The Herald of Free Enterprise, the court ruled that the common practice of not checking ferry doors before departure was negligent, illustrating that accepted practices may still breach the duty of care.
How can the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur help claimants prove negligence? What are the conditions?
Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when:
- The defendant controlled the thing causing harm.
- The accident would not occur without negligence.
- The claimant lacks evidence of specific negligence.
Example: In Scott v London and St Katherine Docks (1865), a bag of sugar fell from a hoist, injuring the claimant. The defendant’s control and the unusual nature of the accident inferred negligence.
How does the Civil Evidence Act 1968 assist claimants in proving a breach of duty in negligence?
Under the Act, a criminal conviction involving careless conduct creates a presumption of negligence in subsequent civil claims. For instance, if a driver is convicted of careless driving, this can be used as evidence of a breach of duty in a related civil claim.
How does the case Roe v Ministry of Health (1954) illustrate the relevance of current knowledge to the standard of care?
In Roe v Ministry of Health, a claimant was paralyzed due to contamination in anesthetic stored in cracked glass vials. At the time, the risk of seepage was not known. The court held the defendant not liable, as they could not be expected to foresee an unknown risk.
