Breach of duty

• Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks

  Standard of care is of a reasonable man
• Nettleship V Weston (Special characteristics of defendant)

  Learner driver crashed car and injured driving instructor - standard of care expected is the same as any driver
• Bolom V Friern Barnet hospital management committee (Special characteristics of defendant)

  The standard of a professional is judged by the standard of the profession - following either of two accepted medical methods was said to be acceptable in reaching the standard of care expected
• McHale V Watson (Special characteristics of defendant)

  12 year old threw dart and missed or rebounded and injured 9 year old girl - standards of reasonable child
• Paris V Stephney (Special characteristics of claimant)

  Claimant lost sight in one eye - to loosen bolt he hit with hammer and metal flew off and hit in his good eye - employers should have taken extra care
• Bolton V Stone (size of risk)

  Cricket ball hit passerby there was high fence around cricket ground and wicket long way from fence - risk was low so no breach
• Latimer (all precautions taken?)

  Factory floor became flooded and was slippery. Sawdust was put to prevent slipping but claimant was injured. Only way to prevent complete injury was to close factory but that's unreasonable - took all practical precautions a reasonable man would
• Watt V Hertfordshire (justifiable risk)

  Firefighters injured lifting gear when travelling in a vehicle that wasn't suitable. Proper vehicle was being used to save a woman trapped under a vehicle - benefit of saving woman was greater so no breach