Breach of duty — common mistakes

When analysing a problem question, always state the general rule of the 'reasonable person' first. Then, consider if the defendant falls into a special category (e.g., child, professional, learner) and apply the relevant case law to adjust the standard accordingly. This demonstrates a clear and logical application of the law.

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.

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.

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.