- Created by: Jessica Speight
- Created on: 07-05-14 18:53
When you breach a duty, you must have done an act/omission which fell below the standard of care. The standard of care is that of a reasonable person. This was decided in the case of
BYLTH V BIRMINGHAM WATER WORKS
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT
BOLAN V FRIERN HOSPITAL - the standard of care should be that of a reasonable doctor, which is higher than that of a reasonable man.
In this case, the patient was suffering from a mental illness and was given ECT. It is up to the doctor whether or no to give the patient a muscle relaxant before hand but the patient suffered a broken bone. It was decided that the doctor hadn't fallen below the standard of care as it wasn't mandatory to use the muscle relaxant.
Learner driver -
NETTLESHIP V WESTON -
the standard of care for a learner driver should be that of a reasonable driver.
In this case, the learner driver was going to fast round a bend resulting in crashing the car into a lamppost. The learner driver would be liable as he fell below the standard of care.
A child -
MULLIN V RICHARDS -
The standard of care should be that of a reasonable child of the defendant age.
In this case, two 15 year old boys were having a sword fight with rulers, one of the rulers had shattered and injured the boys eye. It was decided that…