Negligence - Breach of Duty

Question 1

General

Answer 1

Standard of care is that of a reasonable man Muir v Glasgow City Corporation.
Don’t expect to go beyond standards of a reasonable individual.
Subjective in focuses on situation, and objective in not looking at what they actually did.

Question 2

In order to establish - 1) Voluntary act or omission by the defender

Answer 2

Waugh v James K Allen Ltd - Truck Driver illness back on road and killed people, not even doctor foresaw. Nobody could foresee it

Question 3

2) Harm must be reasonable and consequential to the defender’s conduct

Answer 3

Muir v Glasgow City Corporation - Manageress of tea room, only liable for reasonable foreseeable
Malcom v Dickson - Fire in building, man dies of exhaustion
Roe v Minister of Health - Can’t be held liable for things unknown at the time
Range of Probable Consequences - Hughes v Lord Advocate - Manhole covering, known source of danger but unknown consequence. Liable

Question 4

3) Act or Omission must constitute negligence

Answer 4

A) Probability of Injury - Bolton v Stone (Cricket ball hit way out of grounds, only substantial risks must account for) Informed choice though - McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd (Attempt to sue, but husband knew risks and took them)
B) Seriousness of Injury to Pursuer - Paris v Stepney Borough Council (No safety googles, went completely blind as already blind in one eye)
C) Value of the Activity - Watt v Hertfordshire City Council (Fire equipment not properly placed but too high value of activity, reasonable risk to take)
D) Practicality of taking precautions - Quinn v Cameron and Robertson Ltd (Illness due to particles but these could not be protected against)
E) Cost of Precautions - Latimer v AEC Ltd (Cooling system damaged put down saw dust, then slip but cost too great if shut down) Watt v Hertfordshire (balance risk against the end) Burden < Probability of Harm
F) Usual practice in the business - Morton v William Dixon Ltd (Mind shaft, is it in line with how other people deal with the situation) Brown v Rolls Royce Ltd - (Hand cream, justified it with another way to protect against)