Negligence Flow Chart (2): Breach of Duty
The general gist of this is if they have met the standard of a reasonable person
1. Have they met the standard of the reasonable person?
Legal liability is limited to those consequences of our acts which a reasonable man of
ordinary intelligence and experience so acting would have in contemplation – Blythe v
Birmingham Waterworks
Generally; If the reasonable person would not have acted in the way you acted, you would
have fallen below this duty. The reasonable man is what the judge believes is just and fair
(Healthcare v Holmes).
As it is objective, the C cannot claim they do not fall under the criteria, it is an objective
standard that neds to be reached, even if it is impossible for them to reach that standard.
2. Assessing the breach
What are the qualities of the reasonable person
The reasonable person is placed in the position of D.
Wells v Cooper: You do not need to reach the standard of a professional if you are not, but
the standard of someone with your skillset.
This standard may be modified, but not in the case of inexperience. Nettleship v Weston:
No modification due to inexperience of driving. If you are a provisional/new driver no
exceptions will be made for this in reducing the standard of care.
Whilsher v Essex: no modification for a junior doctor, they have to meet the standard of a
reasonable doctor.
Disabilities may account for a modified standard: Roberts v Ramsbottom: if you are
conscious and can make voluntary movements, you still have to meet the standard of a
reasonable driver. However, Mansfield v Weetabix states that if you are unaware of the
disability then the standards may be modified. Dunnage v Randall: if you are acting as an
automaton (completely involuntarily) then they will escape liability for negligence.
Age is also taking into account when adopting the reasonable standard of care. This is
applied for children (McHale v Watson: a child can still be liable but held at a modified
standard of a reasonable child at that age), but no authority yet to say that age will be taken
into account for the elderly.
If D has extra knowledge about the risks involved, then this will be taken into account: Baker
v Quantum Clothing Group.
If you have a specialist skill resulting from specialist training there is also an adapted test:
- Bolom: If a doctor complies with a body of medical opinion you are not negligent,
even if the majority of medical bodies do not agree
- Edward Wong Finance v Johnson Strokes and Master: The Bolom test shuld not be
used in all circumstances – it was not allowed in finance
- Bolitho v City and Hackney: the responsible body of opinion must have a logical
basis for taking this opinion.
The general gist of this is if they have met the standard of a reasonable person
1. Have they met the standard of the reasonable person?
Legal liability is limited to those consequences of our acts which a reasonable man of
ordinary intelligence and experience so acting would have in contemplation – Blythe v
Birmingham Waterworks
Generally; If the reasonable person would not have acted in the way you acted, you would
have fallen below this duty. The reasonable man is what the judge believes is just and fair
(Healthcare v Holmes).
As it is objective, the C cannot claim they do not fall under the criteria, it is an objective
standard that neds to be reached, even if it is impossible for them to reach that standard.
2. Assessing the breach
What are the qualities of the reasonable person
The reasonable person is placed in the position of D.
Wells v Cooper: You do not need to reach the standard of a professional if you are not, but
the standard of someone with your skillset.
This standard may be modified, but not in the case of inexperience. Nettleship v Weston:
No modification due to inexperience of driving. If you are a provisional/new driver no
exceptions will be made for this in reducing the standard of care.
Whilsher v Essex: no modification for a junior doctor, they have to meet the standard of a
reasonable doctor.
Disabilities may account for a modified standard: Roberts v Ramsbottom: if you are
conscious and can make voluntary movements, you still have to meet the standard of a
reasonable driver. However, Mansfield v Weetabix states that if you are unaware of the
disability then the standards may be modified. Dunnage v Randall: if you are acting as an
automaton (completely involuntarily) then they will escape liability for negligence.
Age is also taking into account when adopting the reasonable standard of care. This is
applied for children (McHale v Watson: a child can still be liable but held at a modified
standard of a reasonable child at that age), but no authority yet to say that age will be taken
into account for the elderly.
If D has extra knowledge about the risks involved, then this will be taken into account: Baker
v Quantum Clothing Group.
If you have a specialist skill resulting from specialist training there is also an adapted test:
- Bolom: If a doctor complies with a body of medical opinion you are not negligent,
even if the majority of medical bodies do not agree
- Edward Wong Finance v Johnson Strokes and Master: The Bolom test shuld not be
used in all circumstances – it was not allowed in finance
- Bolitho v City and Hackney: the responsible body of opinion must have a logical
basis for taking this opinion.
