Standard of Care Flashcards
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Ratio: Negligence = ‘doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’.
Bolam v Frien Hospital Management Committee
Ratio: Established the Bolam test for clinical negligence: Professional standard = ‘the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art’. If a defendant can show that they acted in accordance with accepted practice, the court will accept this.
Facts: A doctor conducting electro-convulsive therapy did not give the patient any muscle relaxant. The patient suffered a fraction as a result. The doctor’s decision was supported by other doctors and so not held to be negligent.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
Ratio: The court need not follow a professional opinion where it is illogical.
Facts: A doctor argued that even if she had attended a child having a cardiac arrest she would not have performed the intubation that the claimant’s experts said was the correct action. She was supported in this by a reasonable body of experts.
Etheridge v East Sussex CC
Ratio: The standard of care does not require someone to have done every possible thing to prevent harm, just what a reasonable person would have done.
Facts: A teacher was injured when she fell down the stairs after a basketball was thrown at her. The school had procedures in place to prevent such accidents and so were not liable.
Gates v McKenna
Ratio: The standard is judged by the act, not the actor.
Facts: The stage hypnotist Paul McKenna was to be judged by the standard of the reasonable stage hypnotist.
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing
Ratio: The reasonable man = the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd
Ratio: If an individual is unaware of their impaired ability, allowances may be made.
Facts: The defendant suffered from a hypoglycaemic state and consequently crashed his lorry into the claimant’s shop. The driver did not realise his ability was impaired and would have stopped if he had known. There was no breach of duty of care.
McHale v Watson
Ratio: A child should be judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the defendant’s age.
Facts: McHale, a child, was injured when another child threw a metal rod at a piece of wood.
Mullin v Richards
Ratio: A child should be judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the defendant’s age.
Facts: A play fight between two fifteen year old girls resulted in an eye injury.
Nettleship v Weston
Ratio: The standard attached to the act, not the actor.
Facts: A learner driver was still held to the standard of the ordinary, competent driver.
Phillips v William Whiteley Ltd
Ratio: Sometimes the standard will attach to the actor, if there is a choice of standard available.
Facts: A jeweller was not expected to reach the same standard as a surgeon for the purposes of piercing.
Roberts v Ramsbottom
Ratio: If an individual is aware of their impaired ability and acts anyway, there will be no allowance for their impairment.
Facts: Defendant suffered a stroke while driving. The driver was aware he felt odd but continued driving anyway. He had several minor collisions and then, continuing his journey, hit a pedestrian. Held that the standard in question was that of the reasonably competent driver. The reasonably competent driver would have stopped the car. He was liable in negligence because he retained some control of his actions.
Taafe v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Ratio: Expert evidence can be overturned where it is illogical.
Facts: Paramedics examined a woman but did not take her to hospital. She later died. Held that this decision was illogical.
Wells v Cooper
Ratio: Sometimes the standard will attach to the actor, if there is a choice of standard available.
Facts: A man doing DIY is not expected to reach the standard of a professional carpenter.
Wilsher v Essex Area HA
Ratio: The standard attaches to the act, not the actor.
Facts: A junior doctor gave a prematurely-born baby the wrong amount of oxygen. The baby developed blindness, although it was uncertain whether this was caused by the excess oxygen. The junior doctor was held to the standards of a reasonable doctor. No exceptions were made for the fact he was a trainee.
Carmarthanshire CC v Lewis
Ratio: Consequences are not proof of breach.
Dunnage v Randall
Ratio: Modern approach to disability - unlikely to be considered.
Condon v Basi
Ratio: There will only be a fall below the standard of care in sporting cases if there is a reckless disregard for safety. The standard considered will be that of the level in question.
Watson v Gray
Ratio: Ratio: There will only be a fall below the standard of care in sporting cases if there is a reckless disregard for safety.
Maynard v West Mids
Ratio: If a defendant can show that they acted in accordance with accepted practice, the court will accept this.
Re Herald of Free Enterprise
Ratio: Occasionally, a court will hold that common practice is wrong if it cannot be justified.
Facts: Ferry sailed with bow doors open for no reason other than to maximise profit.
Bolton v Stone
Ratio: The more likely it is that someone will get injured, the more likely it is that a breach will be found.
Facts: Cricket balls were only hit out 6 times in 30 years and so injury was unlikely.
Pearson v Lightning
Ratio: The more likely it is that someone will get injured, the more likely it is that a breach will be found.
Facts: A golf ball was struck in an area where it was likely to rebound - the likelihood of injury was high.
Wagon Mound No 2.
Ratio: If it is easy to take precautions, they should be taken.
Paris v Stepney
Ratio: If the injury that may occur would be serious, greater care is needed, particularly if the defendant is aware of this greater risk.
Facts: A factory worker was blind in one eye and so any damage to his other eye would be more detrimental to him than to other workers. His employer knew this but did not give him goggles.
Latimer v AEC
Ratio: There is less likely to be a breach if a defendant takes reasonable precautions.
Facts: The claimant was injured by a wet floor at work. Some sawdust had been put down, but the only way to prevent the risk completely would have been to cease operations completely, which would have been highly detrimental to the business. On the facts, it was considered that the business had taken adequate precautions.
Payling v Naylor
Ratio: If there is no obligation to check a contractor’s insurance position, failure to do so will not be a breach.
Knight v Home Office
Ratio: Courts may consider defendant’s resources in determining whether they took reasonable precautions.
Greaves and Co v Baynham, Meikle and Partners
Ratio: If a defendant takes on a task they know is beyond their capabilities, this may be evidence of breach.
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
Ratio: The social utility of an action can justify taking larger risks.
Facts: A fireman was hurt when equipment fell on him/ The fire engine was in transit on the way to an emergency.
Ward v Condon
Ratio: The social utility of an action can justify taking greater risks.
Facts: Running a red light can be a justifiable risk.
