Negligence Breach of Duty A03

Question 1

What are the 3 WDPs for Breach of Duty

Answer 1

General standard of care

Varying standard of care

Protection of medical professionals

Question 2

+P1: Objective test for standard of care

Answer 2

creates consistency and fairness →promotes equality in the law as everybody is treated the same

Question 3

+DP1: Nettleship v Weston justified decision…

Answer 3

to public policy decision, would be unfair if CL was injured and unable to claim → encourages vigilance of learner drivers

Question 4

-WDP1: Nettleship v Weston unjustified decision…

Answer 4

too harsh expectations on learner drivers expecting them to be at the standard of a qualified drivers competency

Question 5

-P2: Courts have been criticised to lower/raise the standard of care based on…

Answer 5

circumstances, as it creates inconsistency and unfairness in law with no clarification

Question 6

+DP2: However, Mullins v Richards shows how….

Answer 6

the varying standard of care can be fair, justified that children do not have to reach the standard of an adult

Question 7

+WDP2: Justified that DF overs a higher standard of care if CL is vulnerable (case)

Answer 7

Paris v Stepney Borough Council - protects CL and encourages employers to protect their staff

Question 8

+P3: Bolam v Friern Hospital - public policy as it avoids….

Answer 8

floodgates = fair on the NHS → allows doctors to work and take risks without the fear of prosecution

Question 9

-DP3: Doctors may take advantage of this protection and unfairly…

Answer 9

cover up mistakes of each other and testify their innocence which means evidence can be unreliable → unfair on CL who have suffered damage and will be unable to complain

Question 10

+WDP3: Bolitho v CHHA held that the courts will not take expert evidence if….

Answer 10

the opinion is unreasonable which protects claimants from corruption + demonstrates doctors don’t have blanket immunity