Question 1

If a defendant genuinely did their best, can they still be found in breach of their duty of care?

Accepted Answer

Yes. The standard of care is objective, not subjective. It is based on the 'reasonable person', not the individual defendant. The classic example is Nettleship v Weston, where a learner driver who was 'doing her best' was still found liable because her driving fell below the standard of a reasonably competent driver. The law prioritises a consistent, predictable standard of safety for the public over the personal efforts of the defendant.

Question 2

Is the 'reasonable person' a real person or an ideal of perfection?

Accepted Answer

Neither. The 'reasonable person' is a legal fiction; a hypothetical, abstract creation of the courts used as a benchmark. This person is not perfect and is not expected to have all knowledge or to take every single precaution against all risks. They are simply an embodiment of the ordinary, prudent citizen, equipped with the general knowledge and foresight expected in society. The standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection.

Question 3

Does a very low risk of harm automatically mean there is no breach of duty?

Accepted Answer

Not automatically. While a low risk of harm is a strong factor suggesting no breach (as in Bolton v Stone), it is not decisive on its own. The courts must balance all four risk factors. For example, in Paris v Stepney BC, the risk of a splinter hitting the worker's eye was low, but because the potential harm (total blindness) was so great, the defendant was still found to be in breach for not providing goggles. The low risk was outweighed by the high magnitude of potential harm.

Breach of duty

What you need to know

Breach of duty