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
8. Breach of duty: the standard of care
Chapter
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
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
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
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 judgement 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
6. Breach of duty
This chapter examines breach of duty in negligence. It discusses the factors that courts consider in determining whether defendants are in breach of their duties of care to claimants. In each case, these factors include the foreseeability of harm to the claimant, the appropriate standard of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, and the conduct of the defendant in comparison to the expected standard of care. This chapter suggests that the question of whether the defendant has breached a duty of care is a mixed one of law and fact and that the standard of care required of the defendant is an exclusively legal construct and based on the standard of a hypothetical reasonable person. The chapter considers also special issues involving proof of breach, most importantly in the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Chapter
Nestlé v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Nestlé v National Westminster Bank Plc [1993] 1 WLR 1260, Court of Appeal. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (Nos 1 & 2) [1980] Ch 515, Chancery Division
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (Nos 1 & 2) [1980] Ch 515, Chancery Division. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
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
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
6. Breach of duty
The standard of care
This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.
Chapter
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 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.
Chapter
6. Breach of duty
The standard of care
This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.
Chapter
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
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.
