Breach of Duty

Breach of Duty (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, 1856)

The failure to act in accordance with what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances, resulting in negligent behavior.

Standard for Skilled Defendants (Bolam v Friern, 1957)

Professionals are expected to meet the standards of their particular skill and profession, judged against the practices commonly accepted among their peers.

Unskilled Defendants (Nettleship v Weston, 1971)

Such individuals are held to the same standard of care as a competent driver would exhibit, ensuring safety on the roads irrespective of the defendant's personal experience.

Children's Standard of Care (Mullin v Richards, 1998)

Actions of children are evaluated against the behaviours expected from a reasonable child of the same age.

Caparo Tests

A framework for establishing whether a duty of care exists in negligence cases, requiring the harm to be foreseeable, a close relationship between the parties, and that it is fair and just to impose liability.

Police Liability (Hill v CC West Yorkshire)

This case established that police forces do not possess a legal duty to prevent crimes from occurring, thereby limiting their liability for negligent acts.

Robinson v CC West Yorkshire 2018

Police can be held liable for negligence if their actions or failures foreseeably result in harm to individuals.

Risk Management (Latimer v AEG, 1953)

Introduces the principle that businesses must judiciously balance the necessity of implementing precautions against the burden these precautions may impose, requiring practical measures to mitigate risks.

Thin Skull Rule (Paris v Stepney, 1951)

This rule dictates that defendants are liable for the full extent of the claimant's injury, even if the claimant has pre-existing vulnerabilities or conditions that amplify the effects of the harm.