Negligence: Breach of Duty practice flashcards

Flashcards covering the essential concepts for SQE1 Tort Law regarding the Breach of Duty of Care, including objective standards, special standards for professionals and children, magnitude of risk, and proof of breach.

Breach of Duty

A failure by the defendant to come up to the standard required by law for fulfilling a duty of care.

The reasonable person

The objective standard against which a defendant's conduct is measured; described as the 'average person' or the 'man on the Clapham omnibus'.

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)

The case defining negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Objective test

A test that does not take into account the personal attributes of the defendant, but instead asks what a reasonable person would have foreseen or done in the circumstances.

Bolam principle

The rule that a professional is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals skilled in that particular art.

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997]

The case establishing that the court must decide whether a body of professional opinion is logical and responsible, rather than just accepting it as evidence of reasonableness.

Nettleship v Weston [1971]

The case establishing that a learner driver is held to the same objective and impersonal standard as a reasonably competent driver.

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1987]

The case determining that no allowance is made for the inexperience of a junior doctor; they must meet the level of competence befitting the post they hold.

Wells v Cooper [1958]

The case setting the standard for an amateur doing work around the house as that of a 'reasonably competent amateur'.

Special standard for children

The standard of care expected of an ordinary child of the same age as the defendant.

Litigation friend

An adult who represents a child under the age of 18 in legal proceedings.

Magnitude of the risk

A factor in determining breach calculated by considering the likelihood of injury occurring and the potential seriousness of that injury.

Bolton v Stone [1951]

A case where a cricket club was not in breach because the risk of a ball hitting someone outside the ground was foreseeable but extremely small/unlikely.

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]

A case establishing that more care is required when the potential for injury is greater, such as failing to provide goggles to a claimant who was already blind in one eye.

Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]

A case illustrating that the court will weigh the risk of injury against the cost and practicability of precautions needed to eliminate that risk.

Impecuniosity

A lack of resources, which generally cannot be used as an excuse for failing to exercise reasonable care.

Defendant's purpose

The social utility of the defendant's activity; actions in the public interest (like life-saving) may justify taking abnormal risks as seen in Watt v Hertfordshire CC.

Roe v Ministry of Health [1954]

The case establishing that a defendant is judged by the standard of current knowledge at the time of the incident, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Balance of probabilities

The civil standard of proof requiring the claimant to establish that it was more likely than not that the defendant breached the duty of care.

Res ipsa loquitur

A Latin maxim meaning 'the thing speaks for itself,' which allows a court to draw an inference of negligence when the specific cause of an accident is unknown.

Conditions for Res Ipsa Loquitur

1. The thing is under the control of the defendant; 2. The accident would not normally happen without negligence; 3. The cause is unknown to the claimant.

Section 11 Civil Evidence Act 1968

A provision stating that a defendant convicted of a criminal offence is presumed to have committed that offence in subsequent civil proceedings.