Mnemonic Breach

Question 1

Breach of Duty

Answer 1

Guys
Ben
Went
Biking
But
Couldn’t
Milk
Cows,
Now
We
Can’t
Bake
Welsh
Buns.

Could
Really
Kill
Biking
Pussy
Ben.

Knowing
Cooking
& Baking
Buns
Certainly
Sucks.

Question 2

Structure

Answer 2

Two Step Analysis
Setting the Standard
-SADIA
Assessing Breach of Standard
-BANDI
Precautionary Steps
Breach Test
-PDBBMR

Question 3

Two-Step Analysis

Answer 3

Goldman v Hargrave

Question 4

Setting the Standard

Answer 4

Specialism - Bolam v Friern
Age - Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis
Disability - Mansfield v Weetabix / C v Burcombe
Inexperience - Nettleship v Weston/ Wilsher v Essex
‘Agony of the Moment’ - Cattley v St John’s Ambulance

Question 5

Assessing Breach of Standard

Answer 5

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Assess Foreseeability - Wagon Mound
No Hindsight Rule - Roe v Minister of Health
Distinguish - Bull v Devon
Inevitable Accidents - Knightley v Johns

Question 6

Precautionary Steps

Answer 6

‘What steps could have been taken to prevent the breach allegations against the defendant?’

Question 7

Breach Test

Answer 7

‘Should these things have been done?’ - Quadrant of factors from Bolton v Stone

1. What was the probability of the injury occurring?
2. What was the likely gravity of the injury?
3. What would have been the cost to implement precautionary steps?
4. Would the social/economic utility of the defendant’s activity be severely compromised/reduced, if the precautionary steps were implemented?

King v Sussex: Private sector employees DO NOT have it easier under quadrant due to their social utility
S.1 Compensation & SARAH Act: Refer to this when D is providing desirable activity

Question 8

Bolam Test

Answer 8

Bolam v Friern - if a body of professionals in that field would have done the same thing, then there is no negligence.

Question 9

Bolitho Gloss

Answer 9

If body of professional’s opinion is illogical or unreasonable, then Courts may reject it.

Question 10

Making it Worse

Answer 10

Defendants who volunteered to help must take reasonable care - negligence on their part can result in liability under Cattley v St John’s Ambulance

Question 11

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer 11

Scott v London - Believe D’s negligence caused the harm but cannot prove so. Must fulfil the following:

1. Facts speak for themselves, something went wrong.
2. D had exclusive control - harm was caused under D’s control.
3. No plausible non-negligent explanation
4. Doesn’t usually happen without negligence.