Standard Of Care Flashcards
Introduction?
Once DOC established, must be proven duty was breached
SOC test objective
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks: negligence omission to do something ordinary reasonable person would do
Factors to be considered: probability of accident?
Likelihood of harm influences court whether unreasonable
Healy v Bray 1962: loose rock too improbable to be considered negligent
O’Gorman v Ritz 1947: seat design flaw not negligent
Walsh v Dublin Corporation 1998: door injury deemed everyday accident, referenced Ritz
Cases show lower risk reduces negligence
Factors to be considered: Gravity of injury?
Even slight risk constitutes negligence if potential injury severe
Hughes v Ballynahinch gas 1898: held liable for gas explosion
Seriousness of potential injury affects level of care
Paris v Stepney 1951 ( one eye)
Factors to be considered: Public Policy?
PP considerations can justify taking risk
Whooley v Dublin Corporation 1961 (fire hydrant)
Sheehan v Mid Western Health Board 🌸 (hospital operations should not be dictated by court)
Factors to be considered: cost of eliminating risk?
Slight risk may be run if cost of remedying unreasonably high (kirwan)
Mullen v Quinsworth: shops must have reasonable systems to address spillages but recent rulings impose near strict liability on large supermarkets
Spillages on dance floors more complex: mcSweeney v Garda boat club no negligence / Duffy v Glencarne hotel SC rejected comparing duty to factory duty
Also apply to inmates: Casey v Midlands prison excessive searches would interfere with dignity & rights / Muldoon v Ireland 1988 weren’t required to search frequently as considered excessive & harassing
Res Ipsa Loquiter?
Applies where P can show injury & cause but not negligence
Negligence inferred from connection between instrument & injury
Doctrine called one of great mysteries of tort law (linden) & curiously complex (salmond & Heston)
Meaning sparked much confusion, further complicated by Henchy J restatement in Merck,
Reconciliation on all decisions impossible
Origins of Res Ipsa?
Byrne v Boadle (barrel)
D did not explain, argued P needed to prove negligence
Pollock disagreed, while many accidents don’t imply negligence, wrong to say no accident
Early Principles: Management & Control?
Thing must be under management of D (Erle CJ)
Courts debated whether can apply to former possession (product liability)
Some courts have limited it to actual management facing criticism (Collen V Scaffolding)
Conceptual difficulties arise when no tangible thing (healthcare cases)
Accident would not normally happen without negligence?
Essence of Res Ipsa: if P can establish he will win
Certain accidents suggest those in control of thing were not exercising due care
Modern realities shape courts decision on application eg farmers fencing land
OReilly v lavelle / O’Shea v Tilman horse holiday farm held adequate fencing / shifting burden of proof to D to demonstrate reasonable care
Where explanation found?
Res Ipsa doesn’t apply
Once explanation accepted, situation no longer needs doctrine
Hanrahan case?
Added 2 new criteria: D must be in superior position to provide proof/ must be unjust to require P to prove
Has been contested but remains upheld
Lindsay v MWHB P invoked res ipsa
Despite expert witness identifying possible causes, SC reversed decision
SC held D should only be required to show excercise care not prove cause of brain damage
Res Ipsa: modern developments?
Horse Holiday farm: Keane suggested reconsideration of Hanrahan, favouring classic formulation.
CJ Hamilton reserved judgement
IC may follow different path as seen in Fontaine v British Columbia 1998 & Schellenberg v Tunnell 2000 possibly leading to demise of res ipsa & leaving negligence to be resolved by weight of evidence
Such clarity could enhance law
