1-16 of 16 Results

  • Keyword: negligence standard x
Clear all

Chapter

Cover Tort Law

3. The Standard of Care in Negligence  

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter introduces the reader to the fault principle or negligence standard, along with its positive and negative implications. This chapter first asks. ‘What is negligence?’. It covers the standard of care and, within this, it looks at the objective standard. The chapter goes on to explore the way in which professional skill and care are assessed in the medical context. It also considers reasonable risk-taking and the absence of evidence of fault.

Chapter

Cover Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law

4. Crimes of negligence  

David Ormerod and Karl Laird

Negligence refers to conduct that does not conform to what would be expected of a reasonable person. Along with intention and recklessness, negligence involves a failure to comply with an objective standard of conduct; that is, all of them are forms of fault. To prove negligence, the prosecution is not required to show that the accused failed to foresee a relevant risk; it only has to establish that his conduct failed to comply with a reasonable standard. A person is negligent if he is not able to comply with an objective standard of behaviour set by the law. This chapter deals with crimes of negligence and negligence as mens rea, negligence as the basis of liability, degrees of negligence, negligence as a form of culpable fault, and negligence and capacity.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law

8. Breach of duty: the standard of care  

This chapter focuses on breach of duty. Breach occurs where a defendant has fallen below the particular standard of care demanded by the law. This is largely an objective test and is determined by comparing the actions of the defendant to those imagined to be done in the same circumstances by the so-called ‘reasonable man’. The questions to be answered are how the defendant ought to have behaved (what was the required standard of care) and how the defendant did behave (did they in fact fall below that standard).

Chapter

Cover Tort Law

8. Breach of duty: the standard of care  

This chapter focuses on the second of the requirements necessary to establish a claim in the tort of negligence—breach of duty. Breach occurs where a defendant has fallen below the particular standard of care demanded by the law. This is largely an objective test and is determined by comparing the actions of the defendant to those imagined to be done in the same circumstances by the so-called ‘reasonable man’. The questions to be answered are how the defendant ought to have behaved (what was the required standard of care) and how the defendant did behave (did they in fact fall below that standard).

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Dunnage v Randall [2016] QB 639  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Dunnage v Randall [2016] QB 639. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Dunnage v Randall [2016] QB 639  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Dunnage v Randall [2016] QB 639. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Tort Law

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691  

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Cover Markesinis & Deakin's Tort Law

4. Liability for Fault: Breach  

This chapter examines the principal element of the cause of action in negligence, namely breach of duty. The issue of breach of duty is concerned with whether the defendant was careless, in the sense of failing to conform to the standard of care applicable to him. The discussions cover the concept of breach of duty; the objective standard; professional and regulatory standards; updating of standards in the light of new information; the role of cost-benefit analysis and the ‘Learned Hand’ test; weighing the risk and gravity of harm against the cost of prevention; and proof of carelessness, including discussion of the res ipsa loquitur principle.

Chapter

Cover Casebook on Tort Law

7. Breach of duty: the standard of care  

Once it has been established that there is a sufficient relationship between the parties to establish a duty, the question then arises whether the defendant has been in breach of this duty. This involves a number of issues, many of which involve the judgment of the ‘reasonable man’. The defendant’s behaviour must have fallen below the level of the standard of care owed, which defines the level of safety a claimant is entitled to expect. The ‘reasonable man’ may give the impression of certainty where there is none, for whether it is reasonable to take a certain risk involves questions of economic and social policy which are rarely expressed in the law reports.

Chapter

Cover Lunney & Oliphant's Tort Law

4. Breach of Duty  

Donal Nolan and Ken Oliphant

This chapter begins by looking at the key cases in which the idea of negligence as conduct falling below the standard of the reasonable person was judicially elaborated. It then discusses what it means to exercise reasonable care, looking at relevant considerations such as the gravity of potential harm, the cost of precautions and the utility of the defendant’s conduct. It is explained that negligence is judged from the defendant’s standpoint but according to an ‘objective’ standard of care. The chapter concludes by considering the relevance of ‘common practice’ in setting the standard of care, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (‘the thing speaks for itself’).

Chapter

Cover Tort Law: Text and Materials

4. Breach of Duty  

This chapter begins by looking at the key cases in which the idea of negligence as conduct falling below the standard of the reasonable person was judicially elaborated. It then discusses reasonable care; the utility of the defendant's conduct; the ‘objective’ nature of the standard of care; the relevance of ‘common practice’ in setting that standard; and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (‘the thing speaks for itself’).

Chapter

Cover Concentrate Questions and Answers Tort Law

3. Negligence II: Breach of Duty  

Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses negligence in terms of breach of duty. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the concept of duty of care in negligence; the objective standard of care: the ‘reasonable person’ and factors relevant to the standard of care; variations of the objective standard: children, emergency situations, sporting events, and skilled persons ‘professing to have a special skill’; and res ipsa loquitur.

Chapter

Cover Koffman, Macdonald & Atkins' Law of Contract

10. Exemption clauses and legislation  

This chapter deals with the statutory policing of exemption clauses under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) and addresses the changes to the law made by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It explains the structure of UCTA and how to use it. It considers the different types of situations in which exemption clauses fall within it, under different sections (e.g. s 2 negligence, s 3 written standard terms of business, s 6 and s 7 goods contracts), and the need to consider whether a section renders a clause automatically ineffective or subjects it to the requirement of reasonableness. It looks at the application of the requirement of reasonableness and factors which have been identified as significant, such as the potential for insurance, the availability of alternatives, and reasons for a level of limitation. It considers the meaning of the UCTA’s definition of ‘deals as consumer’.

Chapter

Cover Introduction to Business Law

11. The Tort of Negligence  

This chapter discusses the difference between the law of torts and contract and criminal law. It explores the tort of negligence, considering the necessary elements for a claim of negligence, namely the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. The chapter considers the special requirements for the recovery of pure economic loss and for loss as a result of psychiatric injuries, looking at both primary and secondary victims. The principles relating to breach of a duty of care, including the standard of care, are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the final element, considering the need for a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law Directions

3. Breach of duty  

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The first step in establishing a negligence claim is to prove that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. The claimant must then show that the defendant has been negligent, that is, has breached that duty. To determine negligence, one must therefore establish how the defendant ought to have behaved in the circumstances (that is, standard of care) and whether the defendant’s behaviour fell below the desired standard (that is, breach). The basic standard of care in negligence is objectively assessed: that of the reasonable man. The objective standard can at times appear to work particularly harshly against a defendant, as exemplified by the case Nettleship v Weston (1971). This chapter examines breach of duty and the standard of care, the proof of negligence, and the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur. It also discusses the Compensation Act 2006 which addresses the problem of the so-called compensation culture.