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
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir 1943
- 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
- Doctors live up to the standard of the reasonable Doctor
- 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
- Higher duty of care owed when dealing with 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Ram drove his car into Rob, injuring her daughter and ruining her car.
- Roberts v Ramsbottom
- Should a person who has become totally incapacitated be required to meet any standard of care?
- Special Skills
- The standard of Care is generally that expected of the reasonable person in those circumstances
Comments
No comments have yet been made