Breach of duty

  • Created by: ElleW88
  • Created on: 10-12-19 18:35
View mindmap
  • Standard of Care and breach of duty.
    • The standard of Care is generally that expected of the reasonable person in those circumstances
      • Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856
      • what is reasonable is an objective test. Dependant on case facts
        • Glasgow Corporation v Muir 1943
          • reasonable man is presumed to be free from over-apprehension and from over confidence.
        • Risk and foreseeability
          • The ordinarily careful man does not take precautions against every foreseeable risk but merely against those which are reasonably likely to happen
          • Where the danger only materialises very rarely, the reasnobale man may ignore it , if he has a good reason to do so
            • Bolton v Stone 1951
            • Miller v Jackson 1977
          • But NOT where there is no counterbalancing justification for running the risk
            • Wagon Mound No2
          • Assessing the level of risk
            • Haley v L.E.B 1964
          • Where the harm risked is greater for the individual plaintiff
            • Paris v Stepney B.C
          • Balancing the risk against the cost and difficulty of avoiding it
            • Latimer v A.E.C 1953
    • Circumstances where a different standard of reasonableness applies
      • Special Skills
        • Doctors live up to the standard of the reasonable Doctor
          • Whitehouse v Jordan 1981
          • There maybe differences of professional opinion, but a doctor is not negligent if he conforms to the view of a substantial body of medical opinion
            • Phillips v Whiteley Ltd 1938
          • The same task maybe 'reasonably performed to different standards, depending on the type of person undertaking it.
            • Roe v Ministry of Health 1954
          • Professional or special standards will change with time, and increase with growing levels of specialist knowledge.
            • Nettleship v Weston 1971
      • Children
        • Are judged by the standard of the reasonable child of that age and experience. This standard is objective, and rises with the age of the child.
          • Higher duty of care owed when dealing with children
            • McHale v Watson 1966
            • Williams v Humphrey 1975
      • Physical disabilities
        • Should a person who has become totally incapacitated be required to meet any standard of care?
          • Roberts v Ramsbottom
            • Ram drove his car into Rob, injuring her daughter and ruining her car.
              • Previous to this he had a mini stroke and caused an accident. He wasn't aware of this stroke. He had no reason to expect he had a stroke, thus no reason to not drive.
                • He argued not his fault, his standard of care had not been breach. Objective view. Did not have a complete lack of control, thus was liable.


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort resources »