AS Law02 - Tort - Breach of Duty

• once duty of care is established via 3 part caparo; breach of duty must be reached by failing to meet the standard of care required.

• Standard of Care - what level of care must be maintained; reasonable man in the conditions of the activity.
  • Blyth v Birmingham waterworks co. - Baron Alderson

Reasonable man - expression used to describe the basis of the law of negligence: typical ordinary person.

• it is an objective test - looks at how the reasonable man would act in a situation.
  • Wells v Cooper 1954 (fitting a door handle that came off resulting in damage to C) - No special charactersitics should be standard of a reasonably competent person doing DIY

Special characteristics of defendents:

• Nettleship v Western 1971(learner driver crashes car into lampost)
  • learner driver must be treated to a normal drivers standard of care

• Bolam v Friern (electro therapy led to injury of C)
  • such medical therapy must be to a standard of a specialist

• Richard v Mullins (child threw mud at Cs eyes)
  • children and teenagers must be treated to the standard of one at their age

Special Charactersitics of Claiment:

• Paris v Stepney B.C (sight only one eye, blinded at work due to no goggles) - higher standard of care needed due to C's charactersitics
• Walker v Northumberland CC 1995 (stress from overworking, after time off same amount of work was given) - employer must take more care as to not repeat injuries due to it having occurred before!

If the magnitude of risk is reasonable or greater than reasonable then breach of duty is apparent, if it is too minimal then it is not.

• Bolton v Stone 1951 (cricket ball hit over fence, only ever happened 30 times in 70 years, ended up hinding a passer by)
  • size of risk was too small thus not in breach of duty

• Haley v LEB 1964 (blindman walked into an electrical trench due to no sufficient warning signs for the non sighted.)
  • This was a reasonable risk and statistically would occur due to the lack of precautions thus LEB was in breach of duty.

Have all practical precautions been taken? if not then breach of duty is apparent.

• Latimer v AEC Ltd (factory was flooded with water and oil but sawdust and clean up was sufficient)
  • not liable as the company acted in the fashion of a reasonably responsible company by clearing up the mess and putting up warning signs.

Do the benefits of taking risks outweigh the dangers; if so then there is no breach of duty.

• Watt v Hertfordshire CC. (firefighters improvised equipment to save the life of a woman but resulted in jury as vehicle was no sustainable) 
  • benefit of saving a life outweighs the risk
    • this is also known as a social utility risk!