Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Has there been a breach
in the duty of care?
- 1. What is the standard of care?
- This is the standard of the REASONABLE
PERSON in the same circumstances
- As laid out in Blyth V Proprieters
of Birmingham Water Works
- This is an OBJECTIVE standard
- EXCEPTIONS TO THE REASONABLE
PERSON STANDARD:
- LEARNERS: should be driving with the same
standard of care of that of an experienced
driver as in NETTLESHIP V WESTON
- CHILDREN (up to 18): are judged
against other children of the same
age as in MULLIN V RICHARDS
- PROFESSIONALS (people with a higher skill set
than that of the reasonable person and thererfore
have a higher standard)
- THE BOLAM TEST states that it doesn't matter if there
is a divded medical opinion as long as there is a
body of similar professionals who support
- THE BOLITHO TEST says that it is ultimately up to the
courts to decide whether or not the medical opinion will
withstand logical analysis
- 2. Have the defendants actions caused
them to fall below the standard?
- RISK FACTORS
- REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
- You are not expected to take precautions against
a risk which is not foreseeable at that time
- ROE V MINISTRY OF HEALTH
- MAGNITUDE OF RISK
- You are not usually expected to go to great lengths to
prevent a harm when there is a very slight chance of it
happening
- BOLTON V STONE
- POTENTIAL HARM
- Where the risk seems small but the
potential harm is great, then you are
expected to deal with it
- PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
- COST AND PRACTICALITY
- LATIMER V AEC
- You are only supposed to do what is
reasonable to prevent harm
- SOCIALLY JUSTIFIED
- Sometimes it acceptable to run a
risk if the action is justified (an
emergency situation)
- WATT V HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL