9084 · 4.1.3
Breach of duty flashcards
Revision flashcards for Cambridge 9084 Breach of duty (syllabus 4.1.3). Flip, recall, then mark a real past-paper question.
Card
Breach of duty definition?
D's conduct falls below the standard of the reasonable person in the circumstances (Blyth v Birmingham — negligence is omission to do something a reasonable person would do).
Card
Bolton v Stone risk factors?
Likelihood of harm, seriousness of injury if it occurs, and cost/practicability of precautions — balance to decide if conduct was reasonable.
Card
Paris v Stepney Borough Council?
One-eyed worker — greater severity of potential injury meant employer should have provided goggles; special vulnerability of claimant relevant to breach.
Card
Bolam test (professionals)?
Professional not in breach if acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion — Bolitho adds logic/rationality check.
Card
Learner driver standard?
Same as competent driver — Nettleship v Weston; inexperience is not a defence to breach.
Card
Does complying with statute prevent breach?
Not automatically — statute sets minimum; common law may require higher standard (Groves v Lord Wimborne).
Card
What is the 'reasonable person' test for breach of duty?
An objective test established in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. It measures the defendant's conduct against that of a hypothetical 'prudent and reasonable' person, not against the defendant's own abilities.
Card
What is the principle from Nettleship v Weston (1971)?
A learner or inexperienced person is held to the same standard of care as a reasonably competent and experienced person performing the same task. In this case, a learner driver was judged against the standard of a qualified driver.
Card
What is the Bolam test?
The standard of care for a professional. A professional is not in breach of duty if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee).
Card
What legal principle concerning risk factors comes from Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)?
The magnitude (seriousness) of potential harm is a key risk factor. Where a defendant knows a claimant is particularly vulnerable to severe harm, the standard of care required is higher, even if the likelihood of that harm is low.
Card
How does 'social utility' affect the standard of care?
If the defendant's activity has a high degree of social importance (e.g., emergency services), the court may find no breach of duty even if risks were taken. The risk is balanced against the social value of the activity (Watt v Hertfordshire CC).
Card
What qualification did Bolitho v City and Hackney HA add to the Bolam test?
It added that the professional opinion must have a logical basis. The court can reject an opinion if it is not 'responsible, reasonable and respectable' and cannot withstand logical analysis, even if other professionals support it.
Card
What is the principle from Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) regarding precautions?
The court balances the cost and practicality of precautions against the risk. A defendant is not expected to take disproportionately expensive or impractical steps (like closing a factory) to eliminate a risk, provided they have taken other reasonable measures.
Card
How did the court distinguish between Bolton v Stone and Haley v LEB?
In Bolton, the risk of a cricket ball causing injury was deemed too remote to require precautions. In Haley, the risk of a blind person falling into an inadequately protected trench was foreseeable and significant, not remote, thus requiring greater precautions.
Card
What is the standard of care for a child defendant?
The standard is that of a reasonable child of the same age. This was established in Mullin v Richards (1998), where a 15-year-old girl was not found negligent for a ruler game injury, as a reasonable 15-year-old would not have foreseen the risk.