Did the Defendant meet the standard of the "Reasonable Person"? Blyth v B'ham Waterworks [1856]
1 of 18
Breach of Duty Test Three Considerations
1. Objective Standard 2.Doesn't have to reflect average behavior 3.Don't have to be at fault morally, only legally - Denning in Nettleship
2 of 18
Relevant Factors to BOD: 1. Foreseeability of Harm
Roe v MoH [1954]
3 of 18
RF's to BOD: 2. Magnitude of Risk
Likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone [1952]) and Seriousness of Consequences (Stepney BC v Paris [1950])
4 of 18
RF's to BOD: 3. Burden of Taking Precautions
The easier/cheaper, higher expectation of taking - The Wagon Mound No 2 [1967]
5 of 18
RF's to BOD: 4. Utility of Conduct
Less liability if harm caused whilst trying to be of use to society - Watt v HertfordshireCC [1954] and S 11 Comp Act 2oo6
6 of 18
RF's to BOD: 5. Common Practice
Failure to conform can be strong evidence be C must show it is the cause - Browns v Rolls Royce [1965]
7 of 18
Res Ipsa Locitur
It speaks for itself - Court can draw inferences if C cannot prove why something happened - Scott v London and St Katherine Docks [1865]
8 of 18
RIL Three Requirements
1. Occurrence would not occur normally, 2. D must have had control of thing causing harm and 3. Cause of occurrence must be unknown to C
9 of 18
Criminal Conviction Proving Breach
Criminal Conviction for same offence proves breach - S 11 Criminal Evidence Act 1968 & Wauchope v Mordecai [1970]
10 of 18
Bolam Test - Bolam v Friern Hospital Management [1957]
1. Where D claims to have a special skill, he is tested to the standard of the "reasonable man with that special skill" 2. If actions are in line with standards practice/used by other members of that profession there is no liability
11 of 18
Bolitho v Hackney and City Health Authority [1998]
Bolitho [1998] states use of technique must be based on reasonable grounds/logical basis
12 of 18
Informed Consent
"Informed Consent" cases - Dr must disclosure all risks to which the patient will attach significance - Sidaway v BEthlem Royl Hospital [1985]
13 of 18
Children Standard of Care
Children - "standard of conduct from the reasonable child" - Mullins v Richards [1998]
14 of 18
Learner Drivers
Leaner Drivers - same as qualified ones - Nettleship v Weston [1971]
15 of 18
Emergencies SOC
Emergencies - lowers standard expected - Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat [1988]
16 of 18
Sports SOC
1. Only liable if "reckless" but expected to go all out for win - Woolridge v Sumner [1963] 2.Referees must safely inforce rules - Vowles v Evans [2003] 3. Breaking rules of a sport is not conclusive evidence of breach - Caldwell v Maguire [2002]
17 of 18
Learned Hand Test - US v Carrol Towing Co. [1925]
B - Burden of Precautions, P - Probability of harm arising, L - Loss which could occur = Liability: B < P x L & Not Liable: B > P x L
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Breach of Duty Test Three Considerations
Back
1. Objective Standard 2.Doesn't have to reflect average behavior 3.Don't have to be at fault morally, only legally - Denning in Nettleship
Card 3
Front
Relevant Factors to BOD: 1. Foreseeability of Harm
Comments
No comments have yet been made