evaluation of breach of duty

1st point

Held to that standard of a reasonable professional is harsh on inexperience occupiers

Explain the rule of “held to the standards of a reasonable professional”

The rule that there are no exceptions main for trainees or learners, upholding the fact that they are held to the standards of a professional is arguably unfair on certain occupiers specifically those new to the role or operating with limited resources

Case example for “held to the standards of a reasonable professional”

Nettleship - a learner driver was found liable even though she was still learning as the courts stated that allowing a lower standard of care would create unpredictability and harm the public

How is does the case of nettleship show a good thing

This rule benefits public safety and ensures occupiers take full precautions from day one

❌however to the benefits of the case of Nettleship

It arguably ignores real life limitations such as training gaps and is strict on genuine individuals. Critics argue that this creates a disproportionate burden, particularly on new operators in high-risk settings e.g hospitality

Conclusion of “held to the standards of a reasonable professional”

While the rule offers consistency for claimants, it can be unduly harsh on less experienced occupiers

Point 2

The risk factors allow fort flexibility benefiting both occupiers and claimants

Explanation of risk factors benefitting both occupiers and claimants

Court considers risk factors to determine whether the occupier has breached their duty making the law more nuanced

Case example for considers risk factors

Bolton - a cricket ground was not liable after a ball hit someone outside the fence because the likelihood of risk was very low

Why is using risk factors a positive

Means that the law tailors expectations to the context which benefits occupiers by recognises that not every minor risk can be accounted for or requires costly safety measures

❌However to risk factors being a good thing

These factors rely on judicial discretion which can cause uncertainty and unpredictability making it hard for occupiers

Last point

Objectives of the test ignores personal circumstances and can unfairly penalise struggling occupiers

Explain for breach in negligence being objective

The test is entirely objective meaning that personal characteristics of the defendant or subjective factors are not generally taken into account

Case example

Case of Blyth - “failing to do what a reasonable person would do or doing what a reasonable person would not do”

Why is the case of Blyth a good thing

It allows for occupiers to be held to a general public standard, protecting indivuals from unnecessary harm

❌however to the objective test being a good thing

The term “reasonable person” could be narrowing to individuals suffering from distinct characteristics

Futhermore to “reasonable man” being unfair

There is no distinct clarity of what a “readable man would do” creating ambiguity of the law