Negligence - Breach of Duty - CIRCUMSTANCES Flashcards
Risk affects the standard of care
Glasgow Corporation v Muir (1943)
‘There is no absolute standard, but it may be said generally that the degree of care required varies directly with the risk involved.’
Factors affecting standard of care - FORESEEABLE HARM
Harm must be reasonably foreseeable for:
> there to be a duty of care (e.g. neighbour principle); and
there to be a breach of that duty; and
the damage to be recoverable in ‘causation in law’
Standard of foresight, not hindsight, of the reasonable person at the time of D.’s
act, not the reasonable fortune-teller.
Factors affecting standard of care - LIKELIHOOD OF FORESEEABLE HARM
Principle: The greater the likelihood of foreseeable harm, the greater the care
expected of a reasonable person to avoid the harm
Likelihood of foreseeable harm - CASE LAW
Donnoghue v Stevenson –> ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Bolton v Stone –> there has to be a sufficient likelihood of something to happening for a reasonable man to do something about it
Likelihood of foreseeable harm - VULNERABILITIES
Does D. owe a higher standard of care because C. is more likely to be harmed?
Haley v London Electricity Board –> D will owe higher standard of care to C if they had reasonably FORESEEN an increased likelihood of harm
Yachuk v Oliver Blais (selling petrol to children) –> D will owe a higher standard of care to C if they KNOW C has increased likelihood of harm
Walkerv Northumberland County Council (work-related stress) –> D will owe a high standard of care to C if D actually KNOWS that C is more likely to be harmed by D’s conduct
Factors affecting standard of care - SERIOUSNESS OF FORESEEABLE HARM
Principle: The greater the seriousness of foreseeable harm, the greater the care expected of a reasonable person to avoid the harm
Seriousness of foreseeable harm - CASE LAW
Beckett v Newalls Insulation Co. Ltd
‘the law expects of,a man a great deal more care in carrying a pound of dynamite than a pound of butter, or in keeping a bottle of poison than a bottle of lemonade.
Essentially stating reasonable care depends on circumstances
Seriousness of foreseeable harm - VULNERABILITIES
D. will generally owe a higher standard of care if D.:
> has reasonably foreseen that C has an increased seriousness of foreseeable harm
> actually knows that C. belongs to a class of people with an increased
seriousness of foreseeable harm
> actually knows that any foreseeable harm that C. sustains from D.’s
conduct is likely to be more serious, e.g. Paris v Stepney Borough Council (rust in good eye)
Factors affecting standard of care - PRACTICABILITY OF PRECAUTIONS
Principle: It is reasonable to take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of foreseeable harm to a reasonable level
If the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions, this suggests that the defendant has failed to take reasonable care, and is in breach.
Analysing precautions
Bolton v Stone
> to avoid any danger they would stop playing cricket however a reasonable man would not abandon playing cricket due to how little the danger was (6 times in 28.5 years someone got hit)
Cost of precautions and who pays
The higher the cost of precautions compared to the risk of foreseeable harm, the less reasonable it is to take them
LOW COST:
Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951
(goggles) –> It would have costed nothing for Mr Stepney to put goggles on to prevent him from getting rust in his good eye
HIGH COST:
Bolton v Stone –> would have been unreasonable to abandon a cricket ground and stop playing
Principle: The court will NOT usually take into account D.’s resources
(because, using the objective standard, the question is what the reasonable
person would have done)
Obvious risks
A warning may be a reasonable precaution
But is there is not usually a duty to warn adults of obvious risks willingly undertaken by an adult claimant –> Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
Factors affecting standard of care - SOCIAL UTILITY (how useful is D’s conduct?)
Principle: The greater the desirability of the defendant’s activity in society, the
more cautious the court should be about finding the defendant to have
breached the duty.
Factors affecting standard of care - EMERGENCY ACTION
Principle: Where there is an emergency, the standard expected of the
defendant is of a reasonable person placed in the defendant’s position of
dealing with the emergency
