NEGLIGENCE - BREACH OF DUTY Flashcards
Objective test
2 Questions
- Has D fallen below the standard of care expected?
- What would the reasonable competent person in D’s situation would have done?
Objective test - Case Law
Mullins v Richards
- the appropriate test was that the reasonable competent 15-year-old would know fencing with rulers would give rise to a real risk of injury.
Nettleship v Weston
D’s inexperience was irrelevant; she fell below the standard of a qualified experienced driver, she breached her duty and her learner status was irrelevant.
what are the 3 risk factors?
- ) risk of harm
- ) reasonable precautions
- ) social utility
1.) risk of harm
Bolton v stone
- the risk of harm was so small, the defendants had taken reasonable precautions that would be expected of them. This meant that there was no breach of duty and the club was not liable for harm done to the claimant.
Paris v Stepney BC
“normal practice” was irrelevant, in view of potential consequences, the council’s failure to take extra precautions by providing goggles fell below the standard expected of the reasonable competent employer. duty was breached.
2.) reasonable precautions
only to eliminate reasonable precautions - no duty to eliminate all risks if not possible.
2.) reasonable precautions - case law
Latimer v AEC
- Defendant had taken all reasonable precautions and was not in breach of duty. It would not have been reasonable to expect them to close the factory.
3.) social utility - definition
If D’s conduct is a benefit to society, there may not be a breach if this outweighs the risks.
3.) social utility case law - risk
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
-This was not a breach of duty. As Lord Denning put it “the saving of a life and limb justifies taking a considerable risk.”
3.) social utility - cost
the council was not in breach of duty for failing to replace the beaches with reed beds, as the cost to the local community of losing the use of the lake was too great for this to be a reasonable requirement.
