MN10442 – topic 8 – breach of duty of care and causation
Breach
- Once a duty of care has been established, the courts must consider whether there
has been a breach of that duty
Reasonable person test
Bogle v McDonalds [2002] – parents ordered hots drinks and the lid became
unlodged and spilt on a child’s hand and scalded it. Parents sued Maccies saying they
should have warned them however the court said that someone who orders a coffee
knows that its hot so it isn’t Maccies fault.
- “Reasonable man is the ordinary man, the average man, or the man on the Clapham
omnibus” – hall vs Brooklands auto racing club [1933]
An objective standard – has the defendant fallen below that standard required by law
If the reasonable person would not foresee injury or damage as a consequence of an action
then the defendant will not be negligent in failing to take precautions.
Walker v Northumberland county council [1995]
- Walker is a social worker and suffered a nervous breakdown from the stress he faced
at work so had some time off. When he came back he said he can’t pick up the same
workload he did before and said he needed some help and was promised the help
but that wasn’t the case he suffered another nervous breakdown and could no
longer work and he sued them. In the first instance they hadn’t fallen below the
standard of care but after him coming back and they did nothing to support him
that’s when the standard of care was not reached.
Factors to be weighed in establishing breach – the court will consider a number of factors
when determining whether the defendant's behaviour meets the expectations of a
reasonable man
The magnitude of harm & practicality of precautions
- Bolton v Stone (1951)
- Bolton was in the garden and lives next to a cricket pavilion a ball gets hit for six and
lands in her garden putting her on the head. She sues the cricket club however
cricket club is sunk into the ground and they have put up a fence around the pitch so
the risk of the ball going over the fence was low so the risk of getting hit was low so
adequate precautions have been taken.
Special characteristics of the claimant and the defendant
- Paris v Stepney Borough council (1950)
- Paris works as a mechanic for the council and had lost an eye years before in an
accident. He was working on a car and was trying to dislodge a bolt and chipped
metal into his eye and is now completely blind. Special character as he only had one
eye and there should have been more precautions as him losing one eye is a bigger
risk than someone else and the solution was cheap i.e., glasses so they fell below the
standard.
Breach
- Once a duty of care has been established, the courts must consider whether there
has been a breach of that duty
Reasonable person test
Bogle v McDonalds [2002] – parents ordered hots drinks and the lid became
unlodged and spilt on a child’s hand and scalded it. Parents sued Maccies saying they
should have warned them however the court said that someone who orders a coffee
knows that its hot so it isn’t Maccies fault.
- “Reasonable man is the ordinary man, the average man, or the man on the Clapham
omnibus” – hall vs Brooklands auto racing club [1933]
An objective standard – has the defendant fallen below that standard required by law
If the reasonable person would not foresee injury or damage as a consequence of an action
then the defendant will not be negligent in failing to take precautions.
Walker v Northumberland county council [1995]
- Walker is a social worker and suffered a nervous breakdown from the stress he faced
at work so had some time off. When he came back he said he can’t pick up the same
workload he did before and said he needed some help and was promised the help
but that wasn’t the case he suffered another nervous breakdown and could no
longer work and he sued them. In the first instance they hadn’t fallen below the
standard of care but after him coming back and they did nothing to support him
that’s when the standard of care was not reached.
Factors to be weighed in establishing breach – the court will consider a number of factors
when determining whether the defendant's behaviour meets the expectations of a
reasonable man
The magnitude of harm & practicality of precautions
- Bolton v Stone (1951)
- Bolton was in the garden and lives next to a cricket pavilion a ball gets hit for six and
lands in her garden putting her on the head. She sues the cricket club however
cricket club is sunk into the ground and they have put up a fence around the pitch so
the risk of the ball going over the fence was low so the risk of getting hit was low so
adequate precautions have been taken.
Special characteristics of the claimant and the defendant
- Paris v Stepney Borough council (1950)
- Paris works as a mechanic for the council and had lost an eye years before in an
accident. He was working on a car and was trying to dislodge a bolt and chipped
metal into his eye and is now completely blind. Special character as he only had one
eye and there should have been more precautions as him losing one eye is a bigger
risk than someone else and the solution was cheap i.e., glasses so they fell below the
standard.
