Breach of Duty of Care

HideShow resource information
Breach of duty
When a defendant's standard falls below the accepted standard of reasonableness for the particular situation
1 of 11
Standard of reasonableness
The average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability
2 of 11
R v Adamako 1994
Adamako was an anaethasist in breach of his duty of care when he was responsible for the death of a patient undergoing a simple eye op. No reasonable doctor would have let this happen.
3 of 11
Magnitude of the risk
Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951 - one eyed mechanic owed a greater duty of care due to nature of job and even more so due to his eye loss. High magnitude = high standard of reasonableness
4 of 11
Cost of prevention
Bolton v Stone 1951 - The cost of the dome in Bolton over a cricket ground was so low that the duty of care was lowered. High cost = low standard of reasonableness
5 of 11
Practicality of precaution
Latimer v AEC 1952 - Latimer suggested the only way to have prevented his injury was to close the factory. Practical precaution = higher standard of reasonableness
6 of 11
Age of claimant or defendant
Mullin v Richards 1998 - both under 18 so young claimant and young defendant which cancelled each other out. Young claimant = high standard of reasonableness. Young defendant = lower standard of reasonableness
7 of 11
Level of skill
Nettleship v Weston 1971 - Learner driver owes the same duty of care as an experienced and qualified driver. Great skill = higher standard of reasonableness
8 of 11
Physical/mental state of claimant/defendant
Mansfield v Weetabix 1997 - Weetabix driver was diabetic and had no idea so owed the other road users a lower duty. Mental/physical disability for claimant = high standard of reasonableness. Physically/mentally ill defendant = lower S.O.R
9 of 11
Common practice
Mullins v Richards 1998 - Fell below the practice that was normal elsewhere as other schools would have rules to cover ruler fights. Failure to follow common practice = higher standard of reasonableness
10 of 11
Benefit from the risk
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council 1954 - compensating benefit from the risk e.g potentially saving a life then the duty of care is lowered. Benefit = lower standard of reasonableness.
11 of 11

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability

Back

Standard of reasonableness

Card 3

Front

Adamako was an anaethasist in breach of his duty of care when he was responsible for the death of a patient undergoing a simple eye op. No reasonable doctor would have let this happen.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951 - one eyed mechanic owed a greater duty of care due to nature of job and even more so due to his eye loss. High magnitude = high standard of reasonableness

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Bolton v Stone 1951 - The cost of the dome in Bolton over a cricket ground was so low that the duty of care was lowered. High cost = low standard of reasonableness

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »