Tort - Breach of Duty

Cases and principles for tort

18 cards   |   Total Attempts: 182
  

Cards In This Set

Front Back
Glasgow Corp v Muir
The reasonable man is not beset by confidence or over-timidity.
"Some imagine every path beset with lions"
Nettleship v Weston
Inexperience. D will be held to the minimum standard.
Driving - minimum standard is that of a reasonable, experienced driver; not a reasonable learner driver
Megaw LJ: impossible to ascertain between learner drivers of varying standards
Phillips v Whiteley
Experience: If D professes to have a skill, he will be held to the standard he has professed
Jeweller piercing ears held to standard of reasonable jeweller for hygiene - not standards of a surgeon!
Mullen v Richards
Age: If D is a child, he must be held to the reasonable standard of a child of that age
Orchard v Lee
Age: D's conduct must be 'significantly outside of the norm' for a child of that age to be a breach of duty
Mansfield v Weetabix
Disability/mental disability: If D has a disability that they know of and believe they have taken all precautions, there is no breach. Leggatt LJ
If D knows they have a disability and will be affected but does the act anyway then there is a breach.
Roe v Minister of Health
Timing: D can only be held to the standard of knowledge available at the material time.
'must not look at 1947 acts with 1954 glasses'
Tomlinson v Congleton BC
s1 Compensation Act 2006
Nature of activity: If activity is of great public worth it will be a factor against finding a breach of duty.
Bolton v Stone
Wagon mound no 2
Probability of harm: If the risk is substantial - points towards BoD.
If it is small but not far-fetched, it will be weighed against the public value of the activity
If it's a far-fetched risk - points against BoD
Paris v Stepney
Gravity of harm at risk: if the gravity of harm is serious - points towards BoD.
Weighed against cost of precaution
Latimer v AEC
Cost of precaution (financial): if cost is relatively small then more likely to be BoD. If significant then less likely.
Weighed against gravity of harm.
Woolridge v Sumner
Context of harm e.g. sporting activity - requires quick decisions.
Mere errors of judgement are not enough; need reckless disregard
Blake v Galloway
Sports/games need recklessness that is outside of the norm for negligence.
Bolam v Friern
Professional standards - medical negligence. If D can point to a body that supports his action as reasonable, sufficient.
Bolitho v Hackney
Professional standards - medical negligence. Qualifies Bolam test; must have logical basis. D cannot rely on obscure, disreputable practice to support his actions.