Studied by 0 people
General definition
The fault element of negligence
The Ds behaviour/actions fall below the standard of care expected:
Whether the D has breached their duty is determined by the reasonable man test (Blyth)
Blyth v Birmingham water works co
Defines the reasonable man test
The reasonable man test
This is an objective test. Not a prefect standard, just what would be reasonable in the circumstances (Chittock v Woodbridge school)
Chittock v Woodbridge school
Not a perfect standard, only what is reasonable in the circumstances
Types of reasonable man
The type of reasonable man will determine the standard of care that is expected
The ordinary person doing a task
The learner
The professional
young people
The ordinary person doing a task
You are expected to reach the same standard of care as a reasonable competent peson doing the same task (Wells v Cooper)
Wells v Cooper
You are expected to reach the same standard of care as a reasonable competent peson doing the same task
The leaner
The individual is expected to meet the same standard of care as a reasonable comptent person practicing that skill (Nettleship v Western)
Nettleship v Western
The individual is expected to meet the same standard of care as a reasonable comptent person practicing that skill
The professional
The individual is expected to meet the same standard of care as those in that profession (Bolam v FMHC)
Bolam v FMHC
The individual is expected to meet the same standard of care as those in that profession
Young People
The young person is expected to meet the same standard as other people (Mullins v Richards)
Mullins v Richards
The young person is expected to meet the same standard as other people
Assessing a duty of care
When the court is looking at if a duty of care has been breached, it bases the standard on the reasonable man preforming the task in the circumstances.
Special characteristics of a claimant
Level of risk
Precautions
Public benefit
Was the risk known?
Special characteristics of claimant.
The reasonable man should take more care when the situation demands it. A special characteristics can be anything that puts the claimant at a greater risk the defendant must owe a greater duty, and therefore must take extra precautions and their failure can result in a more serious breach. (Paris v Stepney BC)
Paris v Stepney BC
Where the C has a special characterises a breather duty is owed
Level of risk
The general principle is the grater the risk, the more care needs to be taken. The reasonable man needs to take precautions against foreseeable risks but would not have to guard against unforeseen ones. This is a factor that will obviously change from case to case and factors that will be taken into account include the degree of likelihood of harm that might occur. (Bolton v Stone)
Bolton v stone
The general principle is the grater the risk, the more care needs to be taken.
Practicality of taking precautions
When considering precautionary measures the court must consider:
The practicality of avoiding the risk (was the risk easy to avoid)
The cost of avoiding the risk
If the cost to the defendant of taking the precautions is OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO THE RISK, then the courts are very UNLIKELY TO IMPOSE LIABILITY (Latimer v AEC ltd)
Latimer v AEC ltd
If the cost to the defendant of taking the precautions is OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO THE RISK, then the courts are very UNLIKELY TO IMPOSE LIABILITY
Public benefit
Also known as social utility. It is concerned with the benefits to society of taking a risk. There is no liability if the D is acting to avoid greater harm. For example rescuers (Watt v Hertfordshire county council)
Watt v Hertfordshire county council
Also known as social utility. It is concerned with the benefits to society of taking a risk. There is no liability if the D is acting to avoid greater harm. For example rescuers
Was the risk known?
It should be noted that where a reasonable man cannot know that a standard procedure is in fact dangerous, he will not breach the duty of care. This is because the reasonable man is not expected to know and protect against risks of harm that are not yet known. Therefore, there will be no breach. Once the risk is known then there can be a breach of duty. Roe v Minister of health
Roe v M’insister of public health
It should be noted that where a reasonable man cannot know that a standard procedure is in fact dangerous, he will not breach the duty of care.
