Flashcards in Tort - General Negligence - Breach Cases Deck (17)
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Breach - standard of care
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man wouldn't do.
Glasgow Corp. v Muir
The standard of care is that of a reasonable person; it is an objective test.
Roe v Ministry of Health
D's conduct should be considered based on the state of knowledge at the time.
Bolam v Friern Hospital
A Doctor must show the same degree of skill as a reasonable doctor
Where actions of a doctor are supported by a reasonable body of professional opinion, they will not be considered to have fallen below the standard of care required.
Bolitho v City of Hackney
Dead 2 yr old from negligence
A doctor can be liable for negligence despite a professional body sanctioning his actions where it has not been demonstrated to the judge's satisfaction that the body of opinion relied on was reasonable or responsible.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
Junior Doctor - premature baby - oxygen - blind
A junior doctor on his first day on the wards must come up to the standard of a hypothetical competent doctor in that post.
If causation cannot be established, a claim in negligence will fail.
Wells v Cooper
Standard of care - DIY
Degree of care and skill required of a householder undertaking his own repairs is to be measured by reference to the degree of care and skill of a reasonably skilled amateur carpenter.
Mullin v Richards
Girls fencing with rulers
Standard expected of a child is not the standard of a reasonable person, but that of a reasonable and "ordinarily prudent" child of that age.
Bolton v Stone
Cricket ball injury
Where a risk is so highly improbable that a reasonable person could not have anticipated the harm to the claimant and would not have taken any action to avoid it, D will not be in breach for not taking greater precautions.
Miller v Jackson
Cricket ball injury - more likely
Where risk of injury or harm is foreseeable and relatively high, D will be negligent for not taking adequate precautions to avoid injury or harm to C.
Paris v Stepney
Splinter of metal into eye - already blind in 1 eye
D will have greater obligations to individuals who run a risk of suffering greater damage than normal.
Duty of care of an employer is owed to every employee individually.
Latimer v AEC
Flooded factory floor + oil + sawdust
Where risk is low and cost and practicalities are high, D is only obliged to take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk
Employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Fire service - jack fell off engine
The value to society of D's activity will be taken into account. Claims have a higher chance of success where defendant's alleged breach was for commercial interests rather than for the public interest.
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington
Dog - Car window - "fantastic possibilities"
A defendant must guard against reasonable, not fantastic possibilities.
Mansfield v Weetabix
Unforeseen medical emergency while driving
If D is unaware of a medical condition and becomes impaired while driving, he will not be in breach of his duty of care.
Scott v London and St Katherine Docs Co
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Where C is unable to prove that D was negligent by relying on witnesses and expert witnesses, may be able to rely on RIL:
- The thing causing the damage is under control of D or someone for whom D is responsible
- The accident must be such as wouldn't normally happen without negligence.
- The cause of the accident is unknown to C.
D must then produce evidence showing how accident occurred and not due to negligence, failing that, that he used reasonable care at all times.