Breach of Duty Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the objective standard for breach of duty established in Nettleship v Weston?
The objective standard assesses conduct against that of a reasonable person. Learner driver held to the same standard as a regular driver.
What does the Compensation Act 2006, s1 address?
It addresses the utility of conduct in determining breach of duty.
What is the significance of Bolton v Stone in probability of harm?
It established that the probability of harm must be considered in breach of duty cases. The risk of a ball leaving the ground and hitting someone was so low that it was not reasonably foreseeable, and therefore the club didn’t breach its duty of care (cricket club case)
What is the case and principle of ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’?
George v Eagle Air Services Ltd: ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ allows an inference of negligence from the very occurrence of the accident. Res ipsa loquitur shifts the evidential burden to the defendant, where the incident is such that it would not occur without negligence, and the defendant had control over the thing causing harm.
What was the breach of duty test in Blyth v Birmingham?
‘Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’. Alderson B.
What did Mullin v Richards and Orchard Lee say about standard of care?
Standard of care for children treated differently based on physical age, not mental age. For a child’s conduct to be culpable, it must be careless to a very high degree
What did Bolam say about standard of care and how/when was this qualified?
Medical professional is not in breach of their duty if they act in compliance with practices other doctors would do. Performing an uncommon procedure is not enough to establish a breach.
McCulloch: apply this to procedures done, apply montgomery for risk disclosure.
How did Bolitho qualify Bolam?
Practice adopted must nonetheless be logically defensible/withstand logical analysis.
What did Montgomery say in reference to Bolam?
Divert from Bolam test, approach of protecting patient autonomy and informed consent and disclosing material risk.
Doctor must disclose if risk if:
- Reasonable person in patients position would be likely to attach significance to risk
- Doctor is or should be aware that the particular patient would attach significant to risk
What did Mansfield v Weetabix say about standard of care?
D has high BP, has a heart attack, and crashes her car injuring others. If she did not know of her condition, cannot be liable for breach since heart attack not foreseeable.
What did Philips say about assuming a higher standard of care?
It matters how D presents himself: If he told passenger he is a fighter pilot, becomes an assumption of responsibility, negligent for breaching a higher standard of care. If D does not disclose their professional expertise, they are not held to those standards.
What did Baker v Quantum Clothing Group say about standard of care?
Generally accepted standards can be used to exclude employers from liability unless the standard is clearly bad or the employer had greater than average knowledge.
What did Dunnage v Randall & UK Insurance Ltd say about standard of care?
- A visited C’s home
- A had a schizophrenic fit, set fire to himself with petrol, died and C was injured
- C claimed negligence and sought damages against the A’s insurers (D) for ‘accidental’ bodily injury
Mental impairments are not taken into account in determining the standard of care. Also think about rationale behind this.
What was Cavanagh v Ulster Weaving Co Ltd [1960] AC 145 test about the duty of an employer?
The employer’s duty is:
Personal (not avoidable by delegation),
Fourfold: competent staff, adequate equipment, safe systems, supervision,
Governed by reasonable foreseeability of risk
Factors that are taken into account when determining standard of care constituting a breach of duty.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council: Gravity of potential harm affects the standard of care.
Latimer v AEC Ltd: The cost and practicality of precautions are factored into the duty. Not every possible measure must be taken — only what a reasonable person would do.
Wooldridge v Sumner: Spectators at sporting events accept some inherent risk.
Czernuszka v King: Even in sport, serious foul play can breach the standard.
