©EVERLY 2024/2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
PGDL Tort - Key principles
General standard of care in negligence - Answer✔Breach of duty, negligence is the omission to
do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do, Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Nature of the standard of care in negligence - Answer✔Breach of duty, the test is objective, the
court would look to see what a reasonable person would do in the specific circumstances the
defendant faced
The standard of care is based 'on the act and not the actor' - Answer✔Breach of duty, the
standard of care should be based on the requirements of the act involved, not the experience,
knowledge or other factors relating to the actor
Standard of care in negligence for professionals - Answer✔Breach of duty, an ordinary
reasonable man exercising and professing to have that special skill
Exceptions to the general standard of care - Answer✔Breach of duty, professionals, children,
people who may have their capacity to act impaired but are unaware of this
Factors relevant to a breach of duty in negligence - Answer✔Breach of duty, usual or common
practice, likelihood of harm, magnitude of harm, practicality of precautions, benefit of
defendant's conduct, sport, 'state of the art' defence, breach distinguished from errors of
judgement
Usual or common practice - Answer✔Breach of duty, if a defendant can show they have acted in
accordance with a practice usually followed by others in that field, this will be an argument in
the defendant's favour
Likelihood of harm - Answer✔Breach of duty, the more likely someone is to get injured, the
more likely it is that there will be a breach, Bolton v Stone
Magnitude of harm - Answer✔Breach of duty, if any injury that may occur would be serious,
greater care would be needed than if the risk was of a more minor injury, Paris v Stepney
Borough Council
Practicality of precautions - Answer✔Breach of duty, if it would be unreasonable to require the
defendant to take the necessary precautions, even against a clearly foreseeable risk, the court will
accordingly not impose liability, Latimer v AEC Ltd
1|Page
PGDL Tort - Key principles
General standard of care in negligence - Answer✔Breach of duty, negligence is the omission to
do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do, Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Nature of the standard of care in negligence - Answer✔Breach of duty, the test is objective, the
court would look to see what a reasonable person would do in the specific circumstances the
defendant faced
The standard of care is based 'on the act and not the actor' - Answer✔Breach of duty, the
standard of care should be based on the requirements of the act involved, not the experience,
knowledge or other factors relating to the actor
Standard of care in negligence for professionals - Answer✔Breach of duty, an ordinary
reasonable man exercising and professing to have that special skill
Exceptions to the general standard of care - Answer✔Breach of duty, professionals, children,
people who may have their capacity to act impaired but are unaware of this
Factors relevant to a breach of duty in negligence - Answer✔Breach of duty, usual or common
practice, likelihood of harm, magnitude of harm, practicality of precautions, benefit of
defendant's conduct, sport, 'state of the art' defence, breach distinguished from errors of
judgement
Usual or common practice - Answer✔Breach of duty, if a defendant can show they have acted in
accordance with a practice usually followed by others in that field, this will be an argument in
the defendant's favour
Likelihood of harm - Answer✔Breach of duty, the more likely someone is to get injured, the
more likely it is that there will be a breach, Bolton v Stone
Magnitude of harm - Answer✔Breach of duty, if any injury that may occur would be serious,
greater care would be needed than if the risk was of a more minor injury, Paris v Stepney
Borough Council
Practicality of precautions - Answer✔Breach of duty, if it would be unreasonable to require the
defendant to take the necessary precautions, even against a clearly foreseeable risk, the court will
accordingly not impose liability, Latimer v AEC Ltd
1|Page
