breach of duty

• How does the standard of care vary for Defendants in negligence cases?

  The individual defendant’s characteristics are considered to apply the law fairly. For example, professionals are judged against other professionals, not ordinary people.
• Why are learner drivers judged against experienced drivers in negligence cases?

  Policy reasons are why learners such as learner drivers are judged against experienced people. Every driver, even if just a learner has to have insurance and just because they are alearner the insurance company should not get away with not having to pay damages.
• How does Paris v Stepney BC illustrate fairness in the BOC aspect of negligence cases?

  The case of Paris v Stepney BC, the defendant failed to provide safety goggles for a worker who was particularly vulnerable due to blindness in one eye. The court found the defendant liable because it was cheap and practical to provide goggles, and the risk to the claimant was greater than for others. This case shows how the courts consider vulnerability when assessing breach of duty.
• What principle was established in bolton v stone regarding small risks?

  A defendant can avoid liability if the risk of harm is very small, even if injury occurs, as balancing practicality and risk is key.
• How have health and safety regulations affected breach of duty cases like Latimer v AEC?

  In Latimer v AEC, the defendant spread sawdust on a flooded floor to prevent slips, and the court held this was sufficient to avoid liability. However, modern health and safety laws would likely require stricter measures to protect employees, such as temporarily closing the area. This reflects the increasing emphasis on workplace safety, especially during events like the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Why is it fair to excuse liability when greater risks benefit society ?

  In an emergency, taking greater risks can save lives, as seen in Watt v Hertfordshire CC, where a firefighter was injured when a fire truck was loaded with equipment quickly. The court held the defendant was not liable because the benefit of saving lives outweighed the risk. This principle acknowledges that corners may need to be cut during emergencies.
• how does the professional standard of care balance fairness and accountability ?

  The professional standard of care considers common practices at the time, ensuring fairness. In Roe v Minister of Health, the defendant was not liable for contamination risks unknown at the time. However, this standard evolved in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, where doctors are now required to inform patients of material risks, ensuring greater accountability.
• What did montgomery v Larnarkshire Healthboard introduce to the bolam test?

  In a medical setting, Doctors must inform patients of material risks in treatments and alternatives, ensuring patient autonomy.
• Why is it fair for the D’s characteristics to be considered?

  It makes it so that all rules are applied fairly and equally.
• How are the characteristics of the D taken into account?


  The standards of care that are used will vary based on the characteristics of the individual.