Breach of Duty

• what case defines negligence?

  Blyth v Birmingham waterworks Co
• What is the definiton of negligence according to Blyth v Birmingham waterworks co?

  Doing something which a reasonable person would not do, or not doing something which a reasonable person would do”
• what 2 things will the court do when deciding if the DOC has been breached?

  Set the standard of care required of the reasonable person doing the activity

  See if the D has fallen below that standard
• What is the standard of care in normal circumstances?

  In normal circumstances, the standard of care required in law, generally, is the standard of the reasonable person. We donot have to act perfectly. The law judges D by an objective standard
• What case illustrates the standard of care in normal circumstances?

  Wells v Cooper
• What is the standard of care for a learner?

  Learners will be judged against experienced people carrying the same activity
• What case shows the standard of care for learners?

  Nettleship v Weston
• What is meant by the reasonable person?

  This reasonable person is the ordinary person performing the task competently
• What is the significance of the case of Vaughan v Menlove?

  It shows how the D will be judged objectively
• What case shows how the D will be judged objectively?

  Vaughan v Menlove
• What is the standard of care if the D has a special skill or knowledge?

  A person who possesses a special skill will not be judged by thestandard of the reasonable person, but by the standard of their professional peers.
• What do Judges have to do to set a professional standard of care?

  In order to set a professional standard of care, judges have to rely on the opinions of those who are experts in the particularfield. Others working in the same field judge professionals
• What case gives the Bolam test?

  Bolam v Frien Barnet Hospital Management Committee
• What is the Bolam test?

  One) Does the D’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary, competent member of the profession?

  Two) Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by D?
• What case shows how Patients should be given a choice in their healthcare plan?

  Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health board
• What is the significance of the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board?

  It shows how Patients should be given a choice in their healthcare plans
• What is the standard of care in children?

  Children are not judged against a reasonable person. Inorder to protect children, the courts have held that a child should be judged by the standard of the ordinary child of the same age as the D
• What is the significance of the case of Mullins v Richards?

  It shows how children will be judged against other children instead of adults
• Which case gives the standard of care in children?

  Mullins v Richards
• What case shows how a Medical student / junior doctor's actions will be judged against a Qualified and Senior doctor's?

  Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 1988
• WHat is the significance of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988) ?

  It shows how a junior doctor’s actions were judged at the standard of a qualified doctor.
• What are the risks factors that the Judge will consider when deciding if the D fell below the SOC?

  Size of risk

  Special characteristic of Claimant

  Is the risk justified by it benefitting society

  Was the cost of avoiding the harm unreasonable/excessive?
• What cases show that the size of risk needs to be considered when deciding if the D has fallen below the SOC?

  Bolton v Stone

  Haley v London Electricity Board
• What case shows that the Claimant's special characteristics needs to be considered when deciding if the D has fallen below the SOC

  Paris v Stepney Borough council
• What cases show that potential social benefit needs to be considered when deciding if the D has fallen below the SOC

  Watt v Hertfordshire county council

  Day v High performance sport
• what case shows that if the cost of avoiding the harm was excessive needs to be considered when deciding if the D has fallen below the SOC

  Latimer v AEC 1952
• Why is the size of risk considered when deciding if the D fell below the SOC?

  The greater the likelihood of damage occurring, the more the law expects us to guard against it. A defendant is not negligent if the damage was not a foreseeable consequence of his conduct.
• Why is the C's special characteristics needed to be considered when deciding if the D fell below the SOC?

  The more serious the risk, the greater the precautions to be taken. If the defendant knows that the claimant has a particular disability or is particularly sensitive in some area, then the defendant is expected to take greater care of the claimant.
• Why does potential social benefit need to be considered when deciding if the D's actions fell below the SOC?

  The social benefit of the defendant’s activity may occasionally justify taking greater risks than would otherwise be the case, although the courts are very wary of excusing negligence
• Why is the possibility of how the cost to avoid the harm being unreasonable needed to be considered on deciding if the D fell below the SOC?

  If a large reduction of risk could be obtained by a small expenditure, the defendant has acted unreasonably if he does not take the precautions. If great expense would only produce a very small reduction in risk it will be reasonable to do nothing.