Breach of Duty: Cases

Question 1

What case is this + Principle?

Negligent footballer held to standard of reasonable footballer

Answer 1

Condon v Basi [1985]

Principle: The Reasonable Person has to be in the position of the defendant

Question 2

What case is this + Principle:

Ears pierced by jeweller got infected. Court said it will not be held to the standard of a reasonable surgeon but of a reasonable jeweller who pierces ears.

Answer 2

Phillips v William Whiteley Ltd [1938]

Principle: The Reasonable Person has to be in the position of the defendant

Question 3

What case is this + Principle:

Junior doctor (D) held to the standard of a general practitioner

Answer 3

Wilsher v Essex Area HA [1987]

Principle: The Reasonable Person has to be in the position of the defendant

Question 4

What case is this + Principle?

D gave C an anaesthetic which had been stored wrongly and had a crack in the glass, C paralysed and sued D. It was held that it wasn’t a breach because they couldn’t have known

Answer 4

Roe v Birmingham University [1954]

Principle: Reasonable person must only know what was available at the time

Question 5

What case is this + Principle?

Learner Driver held to the standard of a reasonably skilled qualified driver

Answer 5

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

Principle: Reasonable person will not have skills and attributes of D

Question 6

What is this case + Principle:

junior doctor held to the standards of a reasonably skilled doctor in that area

Answer 6

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988]

Principle: Inexperience doesn’t reduce the standard of care, doctors are judged by the skills the claim to have.

Reasonable person will not have skills and attributes of D- Doctor will be held to standard of Doctor- doesn’t matter if they been practising for 50 years or 1 year

Question 7

What is this case + principle:

kids messing with rulers, it snaps and goes in eye causing blindness. Court said no breach, D was held to standard of a reasonable 15 yo girl

Answer 7

Mullins v Richards [1998]

Principle: Children will be held to standard of a reasonable child of the same age

Question 8

What case is this + principle:

D was driving and C got a stroke, D continued driving, crashed and injured C. Court held he was liable because he continued driving when he should have stopped

Answer 8

Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980]

Principle: The RP will rarely have Ds physical and mental impairments

Question 9

What case is this + Principle:

D drove lorry into Cs shop. He had a health condition he didn’t know about which restricted his brain from working properly. He was not liable as he didn’t know about this condition

Answer 9

Mansfield v Weetabix [1997]

Principle: RP will rarely have Ds physical and mental impairments

Question 10

What case is this + Principle:

C lived next to a cricket field, got hit on the head and sued. HOL rejected this because the cricket club had erected a fence to prevent this. However some balls would go over but this was rare. HOL said the likelihood of this occurring was low and erecting the fence was a reasonable precaution- making it any higher would be impractical

Answer 10

Bolton v Stone [1951]

Principle- Degree of risk: the likelier it is for a risk to occur, the more precautions the RP would take

Question 11

What is this case + Principle?

Cricket Ball came over 6 times in one year despite the erection of a fence. Cricket club held liable. Should have taken more precautions as likelihood of harm occurring was higher.

Answer 11

Miller v Jackson [1977]

Principle: Degree of Risk- the higher the degree of risk, the more precautions RP should take.

Question 12

What is this case + principle:

C worked in garage and was blind. Piece of metal flew in his other eye and became blind. The risk of this happening was low, but the potential severity of the harm was high. Employer was liable as they should have given goggles as a precaution

Answer 12

Paris v Stepney BC [1951]

Principle: Magnitude of Risk- the more serious, severe the risk, the more precautions RP would take.

Question 13

What is this case + Principle:

C worked in factory, factory flooded with water and oily substance, water subsided but oil remained making floor slippery. Owner was aware and used saw dust to stop it, this didn’t cover all the floor and C slipped and sued. Court said owner acted reasonably, the degree of risk of falling was low and it was unreasonable and expensive to shut the factory to clean as a precaution. C failed

Answer 13

Latimer v AEC Limited [1953]

Principle: The lower the cost or practicalities of taking precautions, the more RP would take.

Question 14

What is this case + principle:

firefighter on way to emergency to help a women trapped under vehicle. His van had specific equipment in it, she sued saying this injured her. Court rejected this saying the public benefit of the activity justified the risk taken

Answer 14

Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954]

Principle: Social Utility- if the activity is in the public interest, it may be more reasonable to not take precautions

Question 15

What is this case + Principle:

C injured while playing game in scout hall, leader turned lights off to make it fun.

Answer 15

Scout Association v Barnes [2010]

Principle: Social Utility- (In the public interest?)

This case shows how social utility doesn’t justify all risks. Although there was social utility in this Game, it didn’t justify having kids run around with risk of injury.

Question 16

What is this case + principle:

Doctor was giving patient treatment without giving relaxant, the patient suffered fracture . some doctors said they would give relaxant, and others said they wouldn’t. D found not liable because a responsible body of medical opinion backed him

Answer 16

Bolam [1957]

Principle: Common Practise and the Bolam Principle - If D is a professional, courts will base their decision on if other medical professionals acted the same way or its standard procedure (common practice).

Question 17

What is this case + principle:

Boy had breathing difficulties, went hospital, doctor never showed up and boy suffered brain damage and died.
Doctors had diverging opinions about if she turned up or not. She was found to not be in breach.

Answer 17

Bolitho [1998]

Principle: As long as D complies with a responsible body of opinion and they agree with Ds actions, there is no breach unless its illogical- then there will be a breach

Question 18

What case is this + principle:

Women giving complicated birth. Doctor told her that babies shoulders might get stuck but he never told her that there was a risk of the baby being disabled.
Doctor said he didn’t tell her because it was a small risk and many women often want a caesarean and they found a body of opinion that agreed with them.

Answer 18

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]

Principle: Informed Consent- in this case, SC said doctors should take reasonable care to disclose medical facts about medical treatments and this is because patients are entitled to make their own decisions about treatment and so the courts are prioritising patient autonomy

Question 19

What is the case for Res Ipsa Loquitor? and the principle?

Answer 19

Scott v London & St Katherine’s Docks (1865)
o Harm would not have occurred without negligence
o Object that caused harm was under D’s control
o There are no other plausible explanations

Question 20

What is this case + principle:

C fell out of train. train driver in breach because he was in charge of opening them

Answer 20

Gee v Metropolitan Railway (1873)

Principle: C proving D fell below standard of care

Question 21

What is this case + principle:

C fell outside of train door, no liability for driver because doors could doors could also be opened by passengers

Answer 21

Easson v London & North Eastern Railway [1944]

Principle: C has to prove D fell below the standard of care.