Flashcards in Breach of Duty Deck (26)
Goldman v Hargrave
If D has had a risk thrust upon him rather than produced it by his own conduct, it is proper to have regard to what it was reasonable to expect of him in his particular circumstances (eg if he was infirm rather than able-bodied)
Nettleship v Weston
In exercising a skill D is expected to show the skill and judgment of a reasonably competent and experienced person exercising that skill.
Greene v Sookdeo
The margin of error accorded to D will be greater if D had to deal with an emergency.
Roe v MOH
D is to be judged according to what was foreseeable according to contemporary standards (eg awareness of invisible cracks in ampoules) and not what was probable.
Mullin v Richards
A child is to be judged by what is reasonable expected of a child of that age.
Wells v Cooper
If D does not hold himself out as possessing a particular skill he will be judged by the standard of a reasonable person exercising that skill.
Wilsher v Essex Health Authority
The standard expected of D would be that of the post held by him in the unit in which he operated regardless of his individual lack of experience or competence.
Organ Retention Group Litigation
Even a generally accepted professional practice (e.g Not informing parents that organs might be retained from their children) may amount to negligence because "neglect of duty does not cease by repetition to be neglect of duty".
If a doctor exercises his professional skill or judgment in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art he will be absolved of negligence EVEN IF a body of competent professional opinion would have adopted a different technique.
Bolas does not apply if it can be shown that the opinion in question is not logically supportable at all.
There is generally an increase in the standard of care between generations of professionals (so D was held not be negligent because info on the ear protectors it was alleged he should have used was not widely available at the time he did the allegedly negligent act).
Bolton v Stone
Where the likelihood of injury is low the standard of care will be correspondingly lower - "reasonable men do not act upon a bare possibility as they would a substantial risk."
Paris v Stepney BC
Where the injury to C, if it occurs, is likely to be very severe and D is aware of this, a higher standard of care will be warranted.
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
Where the injury to C is risked for a very important object (e.g. To save life or limb) the taking of the risk is more likely to be reasonable.
Bogle v McDonalds
The legitimate activities and objectives of others should not be curtailed by setting too stringent a duty of care.
Tomlinson v Congleton
The courts will not impose on D a duty to protect C against obvious risks, especially if this would require him to curtail a socially useful activity.
Latimer v AEC
The smaller the risk, the less willing the court will be to require of D onerous and costly precautions (here D had taken all reasonable precautions to reduce the small risk of someone slipping on the wet floor, he did not need to close down the whole factory)
Knight v Home Office
Because statutory authorities cannot withdraw from their field of responsibility if they lack resources, they must be judged by the standard of what is reasonable to expect of an authority WITH THEIR POWERS AND RESOURCES in the circumstances of the case.
Scott v London and St Katherine Dock Co
When D or his servants have a measure of control over the situation and the accident is of a type which does not normally occur without D's fault the principle of res ipsa loquitur will apply.
Woods v Duncan
If D can show there was no breach of duty on his part res ipsa loquitur will obviously fail.
Ng v Lee
Res ipsa loquitur DOES NOT shift the burden of proof onto D; it remains on C throughout. The judge must consider the effect of D's rebutting evidence on the cogency of the initial inference of negligence.
J v North Lincolnshire CC
If D cannot offer an explanation of how the accident occurred but nevertheless seeks to show he has exercised all due care his evidence must be a COMPLETE ANSWER to the claim and this evidential burden will often be a very heavy one.
Wagon Mound (No.2)
It is only justifiable to neglect a real risk of small magnitude if there is a valid reason (eg disproportionately large expense) for doing so. Bolton v Stone applies not to small but real risks, but rather risks small enough that in the circumstances a reasonable man would neglect them.
French v Thames Valley HA
Bolitho's gloss is more likely to be activated where the case does not turn on technical or difficult matters of medical judgment, but failure to take a simple precaution the need for which is obvious to the ordinary person considering the matter.
Mansfield v Weetabix
If D causes damage due to an illness which afflicts him during his driving of which he could not reasonably be expected to be aware, the standard of care expected of D is that of a reasonably competent driver unaware that his condition made him unfit to drive.