tort: breach of duty

• The court will consider what is expected of D and whether he failed to do it, or did it to a poor standard.

  The standard expected is that of the reasonable man in the same circumstances:

  • Blyth v Birmingham waterworks.
• (the reasonable man)

  No allowances are made for inexperience. In Nettleship v Weston, a learner driver was judged by the standard of the reasonable driver.
• (the reasonable man)

  However, where children are concerned, some allowance is made:

  1. In mulin v richards, a 15 year old girl injured a schoolmate whilst fencing with plastic rulers was judged against the standard of a reasonable child of a similar age under similar circumstances.
• (the reasonable man)

  Professionals will be judged against the standard of a reasonable competent professional in that field.

  1. In Bolam v Friern, the standard required of a doctor was that he had followed a course of action that was supported by a reasonable body of medical opinion.
  2. In Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority the Bolam test was modified to clarify the practice of such reasonable body of medical opinion must be responsible and capable or logical analysis.
  3. Wilsher v Essex AHA junior doctors will be judged the same as qualified doctors.
• (4 factors when deciding the standard of care expected in the circumstances)

  1. Likelihood of harm or injure: The more likely the harm, the greater the care that is expected of D. (bolton v Stone, D was not in breach of duty) (Hilder v Associated Portland Cemen, D was in breach of duty)
• (4 factors when deciding the standard of care expected in the circumstances)

  2. Seriousness of consequence: a higher standard of care is expected from D where a serious injury is foreseeable (paris v stepney BC, D had no breach of duty)
• (4 factors when deciding the standard of care expected in the circumstances)

  3. Cost of reasonable precautions: the lower the cost of reasonable precautions, the higher the standard of care expected. D is not expected to take unreasonable precautions. (Latimer v AEC, there was no breach in duty)
• (4 factors when deciding the standard of care expected in the circumstances)

  4. Social utility: if what D is doing is valuable to society then he may not be held in breach of duty. (watt v herts CC, D was not in breach of duty)