Breach of Duty

Wells v Cooper (1958) - D was judged against the standard of a reasonably competent amateur carpenter, not the standard of a professional working for reward. Repairing a door handle is a job a reasonable householder may do for himself.

Nettleship v Weston (1971) - When D, a learner driver, injured C in a car accident, D was found liable as the standard of care required of all drivers is the same: that of a reasonably competent driver. 

Professionals are held to a higher standard of care than an unqualified individual. The principle for professionals is established by asking two questions: does the conduct of D fall below the standard of the ordinary competent professional, and is there a substantial body of medical opinion within the profession that would support the course taken by D?

In Bolitho v Hackney (1998), D was not liable for the death of the claimant's son after refusing to intubate as a large body of medical professionals supported D's decision not to intubate.

The reasonable man must take more care when the situation demands it. If D is aware of a peculiarity of C, they must ensure to take extra care when dealing with C. 

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) - D was liable when a partially sighted mechanic fully lost his sight following an accident at work. D owed a higher duty of care as they knew of an increased risk of harm to C.

Walker v Northumberland County Council (1995) - D failed to alter the workload of C after he returned to work following a nervous breakdown, so were liable when he suffered a second breakdown. 

The court will consider the likelihood of harm occurring. Where the size of the risk is greater, the greater the precautions which need to be taken. In both cases, the claimants were injured by a cricket ball hit out of ground. In Bolton v Stone (1951), the size of the risk was smaller (the ball had only been hit out of ground 6 times in 30 years), compared to Miller v Jackson (1977), where it had been known to be hit out of ground 8/9 times a season. 

If the defendant has taken all practical precautions, they will have acted reasonably. The reasonable man will do all he can practically do to prevent injury to others. In unexpected cirumstances, this may not prevent an accident. 

Latimer v AEC (1952) - D took all reasonable precautions to clear his factory of flood water, so was not liable when C slipped and fell. In this case, closing the factory down was not seen as a reasonable precaution to take. 

When reacting to an emergency or rescue situation, the standard of care is lower. In these instances, the court must balance the risk of harm against the benefit of public good. 

Watt v Hertfordshire Council (1954) - D was not liable for injury to a firefighter during a rescue as the benefit of saving a woman's life outweighed the risk of injury to C. 

Day v High Performance Sport (2003) - when C was injured during a rescue from a climbing wall, D was not liable because the standard of care was lower as it was a rescue situation. Despite D's use of inappropriate practice to save C, it was considered an emergency situation and treated as such.