Negligence - Breach of Duty

Factors & Comparators

What is a breach of duty?

When D’s conduct falls below the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

What did Meadows v Khan confirm about breach?

The court compares what D did with the standard of reasonable care.

Who must prove breach and to what standard?

C has the burden to prove, showing it was more likely than not that the standard of care was not met.

What does Cole v Davis-Gilbert show?

Some accidents are “pure accidents” - fault cannot always be established. 

What is the general standard of care for adults?

They must act as a reasonable, objective person would under similar circumstances, taking into account their level of knowledge and experience.

What is the key case that defines “reasonable person”?

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

• established that a "reasonable person" is defined by the actions a prudent person would take in similar circumstances.

What is the key case that defines “objective standard”?

Glasglow Corporation v Muir

• The reasonable person is impersonal and personal characteristics are ignored.

How are children judged?

Against a reasonable child of the same age (Mullin v Richards).

What does Gorely v Codd show?

There is no minimum age for liability in tort.

Does illness lower the standard?

No - The court disregard the defendant’s actual physical or mental illness in the same way they disregard personal characteristics.

• Dunnage v Randall 

When is there an exception that illness lowers the standard?

When D is completely unaware of his condition (Mansfield v Weetabix).

What did Bolam v Friern Hospital establish?

No negligence if acting in line with responsible professional opinion.

How are learners judged and compared to?

As competent professionals (Nettleship v Weston)

How are amateurs judged?

As reasonable amateurs.

• Wells v Cooper.

What is the two-stage breach test?

1. Comparator - who are they compared to?

2. Circumstances - would they do the same in same circumstance?

What does Glasglow Corportation v Muir state in relation to risk principle?

Higher foreseeability of risk → higher standard of care

How does likelihood affect breach?

Higher likelihood → more precautions

What did Bolton v Stone establish in relation to risk?

No breach if the risk is very small and unlikely to happen

When does the standard increase?

The standard increases if D ought reasonably to foresee greater risk to vulnerable people. 

• Haley v London Electricity Board.

What did Paris v Stephney BC establish?

Greater care where harm would be more serious.

What precautions must D take?

Reasonable precations in relation to the obvious harm.

What did the Wagon Mound (No 2) case establish?

If: 

• Risk is real (not far-fetched) 

• Precautions are easy and cheap 

Then failure to act may be negligent.

How does social utility affect breach?

The greater the social value of D’s activity, the more cautious courts are about finding breach. 

• Watt v Hertfordshire

How is conduct judged in emergencies?

Against a reasonable person in that emergency.

• Jones v Boyce

What did Griffin v Mersey Ambulance show?

Emergencies can reduce liability but not always remove it completely.