Standard of Care

Question 1

Vaughan v Menlove

Answer 1

• Standard is reasonable person
• Man asked farmer to move haystacks next to his property which he never did
• haystacks caught fire and burned property
• neighbour successfully sued farmer

Question 2

Mansfield v Weetabix

Answer 2

• D was a lorry driver who lost consciousness at the wheel
• Blackout due to hypoglycaemic state
• Held not negligent

Question 3

Conihan v Bus Atha Cliath

Answer 3

• Court must be sure that that a lack of maintaining of standard was impossible due to disease etc.

Question 4

Dunnage v Randall

Answer 4

• Man with schizophrenia doused himself in petrol and threatened to light himself on fire during an episode
• Claimant was badly injured when he tried to stop him
• Insurance company argued there was no accident (it would only cover accidents)
• Court held that while he was under a psychotic break, he did still have some element of control after consulting medical records
• P had grounds to argue

Question 5

Roe v Ministry of Health

Answer 5

• P was administered spinal anaesthetic
• Anaesthetic contained in glass ampoules
• Stored in sterlizing fluid which was clear
• However there were cracks in the glass
• Paralysed due to allergic reaction
• Staff not negligent

Question 6

Kelly v Meegan

Answer 6

• ‘in general it may be said that the greater the risk of serious injury or loss the greater the duty of care’

Question 7

Doody v Clarke

Answer 7

• P had eggs thrown at him while walking
• lost eye as a result of infection
• Driver claimed that they were planning on throwing the eggs at a house where there was a party going on
• Driver not liable

Question 8

Bolton v Stone

Answer 8

• Cricket ball hit someone in the head 80 yards away
• 6 times in thirty years
• Not common enough

Question 9

Vowles v Evans

Answer 9

• Amateur rugby match
• front row player injured
• Ref allowed flanker to go in
• paralysed after scrum injury
• Ref negligent

Question 10

Potter v Cliftonville Golf Club

Answer 10

• A golf course was not deemed to have been negligently designed when it was constructed so that green and tees were close together

Question 11

O’Gorman v Ritz

Answer 11

• P injured himself in cinema
• Feet up on chair
• Held to fix this problem would be a large financial commitment for a low risk of injury

Question 12

Turner v Curragh Racecourse

Answer 12

• P knocked over while jogging on D land
• Crossed galloping area
• Argued that there should have been warning signs
• No breach of duty of care seen

Question 13

Grimshaw

Answer 13

• Ford created Pinto in two years while knowing there was a small chance that the engine could explode
• Eventually this happened
• Court held that cost of prevention could not be argued when the outcome was so severe