Week 15: Breach of Duty Flashcards
(39 cards)
What is the standard of care in negligence law?
The standard of care is that of the ordinary reasonable person in the circumstances of the defender.
When is a duty of care breached?
A duty is breached when the defender’s conduct falls short of the standard of a reasonable person.
Does a person breach duty by involuntary actions?
No, to breach a duty, the conduct must be voluntary, as shown in Waugh v James K Allan Ltd.
What happened in Waugh v James K Allan Ltd?
In Waugh, a lorry driver died of a heart attack while driving and caused an accident—the court found no liability because the conduct wasn’t voluntary.
Is the standard of care absolute?
No, per Lord MacMillan in Muir v Glasgow Corporation, there is no absolute standard—the care required varies with the risk involved.
What factors affect the standard of care?
The standard varies based on the magnitude of danger and the likelihood of harm occurring.
What standard of care is a learner driver held to in negligence law?
A learner driver is held to the same standard as a reasonably competent driver.
What are other road users and pedestrians entitled to expect from all drivers?
They are entitled to expect the same level of care, regardless of the driver’s experience.
What case established the standard for learner drivers?
Nettleship v Weston [1971] confirmed that a learner must meet the standard of an experienced, competent driver.
Who must establish the standard of care in a negligence claim?
The pursuer must establish the standard of care—the onus is on them to show what care ought to have been taken.
What must be considered when deciding the appropriate standard of care?
When deciding the standard of care, the probability of injury and the potential magnitude of harm must be considered.
What key factors influence the standard of care in negligence?
The standard of care depends on the risk of the accident, the possible seriousness of harm, and the practicality and cost of taking precautions.
What is the ‘calculus of risk’ approach in negligence law?
The calculus of risk considers the likelihood of harm—the greater the risk, the greater the precautions a reasonable person must take.
What does Bolton v Stone illustrate about probability of injury?
Bolton v Stone shows that if the probability of injury is very low (e.g., 6 balls in 30 years), there’s no breach—a reasonable person wouldn’t be expected to guard against such a remote risk.
Was there a breach of duty in Bolton v Stone and why?
There was no breach in Bolton v Stone because the likelihood of harm was too remote and precautions weren’t reasonably necessary.
What does Lamond v Glasgow Corporation demonstrate about foreseeability and breach?
Lamond shows that where thousands of golf balls were landing on a path, the risk was foreseeable and precautions should have been taken—so there was a breach of duty.
When does a duty to guard against risk arise, based on case law?
A duty to guard arises when the risk is foreseeable and likely, as in Lamond, not when it is rare and remote, as in Bolton v Stone.
What role does the potential magnitude of harm play in the standard of care?
If the potential harm is serious, the defender is expected to take greater precautions to prevent injury.
What happens when the pursuer has a known vulnerability?
Where a pursuer has a known vulnerability, a higher standard of care may be required, as in Paris v Stepney and St George v Home Office.
What was the issue in Paris v Stepney BC regarding employer responsibility?
In Paris v Stepney, the employer breached duty by failing to provide eye protection to a worker with sight in only one eye.
Why was the employer liable in Paris v Stepney BC?
The employer was liable because the seriousness of potential harm—complete blindness—justified extra precautions like safety goggles.
What happened in St George v Home Office?
In St George, a prisoner with a known seizure risk fell from a top bunk, and the prison was found negligent for not adjusting his sleeping arrangements.
What should a reasonable employer or authority do when facing high risk of serious harm?
A reasonable person should take extra precautions—like providing safety gear or changing conditions—when the harm could be severe.
What are considered reasonable precautions in negligence law?
Reasonable precautions depend on the nature of the risk and the practicality and cost of precautions—sometimes even stopping the activity may be considered.
