Standard of Care Flashcards
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
D must behave as a reasonable man would in all the circumstances.
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing
- Who is the reasonable man?
- The man on the Clapham omnibus.
- The standard is objective.
Glasgow Corporation v Muir
- Ignore the personal characteristics of the defendant.
- Impersonal test.
Etheridge v East Sussex County Council
- Although you ignore the personal characteristics, the standard is not absolute. D does not have to do everything possible to prevent harm, just reach the standard of a reasonable person.
- This means you don’t have to ensure harm never comes to anyone, just not be negligent - act CAREFULLY!
THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
- What would the reasonable professional have done rather than the man on the Clapham omnibus?
- Solicitor should attain standard of reasonably competent solicitor, doctor of reasonably competent doctor etc.
- May be room for variation in some professions e.g. GP not expected to reach same standard as consultant.
THE LOWER STANDARD
Nettleship v Weston
Wilsher v Essex
- General rule: courts reluctant to accept lower standard than that of reasonable man.
- Nettleship - learner driver required to drive to the standard of the reasonably competent driver.
Wilsher - junior doctor judged by standard of the reasonable doctor in that field of medicine, regardless of own inexperience.
EXCEPTION - Children
Mullins v Richards
- D and C both 15 y/o school girls.
- Play fight, piece of plastic ruler broke off and hit one in the eye.
- Correct test is whether a reasonable and careful 15 year old would have foreseen the risk of injury.
- 2 schoolgirls on the facts could not reasonably have foreseen risk of injury here.
- D had not fallen below standard of reasonable 15 y/o.
Orchard v Lee
- Two 13 y/o boys playing tag in school playground - one collided with and injured C.
- Where 13 y/o child was playing in play area, not breaking any rules and not acting to significant degree beyond norms of the game, would not be liable.
PROBLEM CATEGORIES
- SPORTS CASES
Condon v Basi
Watson v Gray
Condon
- Higher degree of care required of first division footballer than that of local league player.
Watson
- Professional footballer judged by standard of care of reasonably competent footballer. Professional footballer would avoid challenges known to carry significant risk of injury.
- CHOICE OF STANDARD
- Ask: who would usually perform the relevant task/act?
- The reasonable professional or the reasonable man?
- Choose the standard based on this.
Wells v Cooper
Philips v William Whiteley
Wells
- C suffered injury when door handle came off in his hand. D was householder who carried out work on his property.
- Changing door handle does not require specialist skill so D required to reach standard of reasonably competent amateur carpenter, not higher standard of professional carpenter.
Philips:
- Jeweller who undertook ear piercing required to possess skill or reasonable jeweller, not surgeon.
- DISABILITY/ILLNESS
- Do courts consider D’s illness/disability in determining the standard of care?
- Roberts v Ramsbottom
- Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd
Roberts:
- D was elderly man who had stroke before driving into town.
- Aware consciousness was impaired but did not realise he had had stroke.
- Collided with stationary van then hit and injured C as she emerged from stationary vehicle.
- D was negligent - to be judged by standard of reasonable competent driver.
Mansfield:
- Lorry driver crashed vehicle into C’s shop after suffering hypoglycaemic attack.
- No evidence to suggest BEFORE crash driver knew ability to drive was impaired.
- Crash and attack happened simultaneously.
- Could not take evasive action, so D was to be judged in comparison with reasonably competent driver who is unaware he is suffering a condition which impairs ability to drive.
- No liability.
