7. Breach of duty: the standard of care

2021 ◽  
pp. 169-202
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Reports

Once it has been established that there is a sufficient relationship between the parties to establish a duty, the question then arises whether the defendant has been in breach of this duty. This involves a number of issues, many of which involve the judgment of the ‘reasonable man’. The defendant’s behaviour must have fallen below the level of the standard of care owed, which defines the level of safety a claimant is entitled to expect. The ‘reasonable man’ may give the impression of certainty where there is none, for whether it is reasonable to take a certain risk involves questions of economic and social policy which are rarely expressed in the law reports.

7. Breach of duty: the standard of care

2019 ◽  
pp. 163-196
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Reports

Once it has been established that there is a sufficient relationship between the parties to establish a duty, the question then arises whether the defendant has been in breach of this duty. This involves a number of issues, many of which involve the judgment of the ‘reasonable man’. The defendant’s behaviour must have fallen below the level of the standard of care owed, which defines the level of safety a claimant is entitled to expect. The ‘reasonable man’ may give the impression of certainty where there is none, for whether it is reasonable to take a certain risk involves questions of economic and social policy which are rarely expressed in the law reports.

11. The Tort of Negligence

2019 ◽  
pp. 299-334
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

This chapter discusses the difference between the law of torts and contract and criminal law. It explores the tort of negligence, considering the necessary elements for a claim of negligence, namely the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. The chapter considers the special requirements for the recovery of pure economic loss and for loss as a result of psychiatric injuries, looking at both primary and secondary victims. The principles relating to breach of a duty of care, including the standard of care, are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the final element, considering the need for a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

11. The Tort of Negligence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

This chapter discusses the difference between the Law of Torts and Contract and Criminal Law. It explores the tort of negligence, considering the necessary elements for a claim of negligence, namely the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. The chapter considers the special requirements for the recovery of pure economic loss and for loss as a result of psychiatric injuries, looking at both primary and secondary victims. The principles relating to breach of a duty of care, including the standard of care, are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the final element, considering the need for a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

6. Breach of duty: the standard of care

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Standard ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.

8. Breach of duty: the standard of care

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 215-249
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Objective Test ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law

This chapter focuses on the second of the requirements necessary to establish a claim in the tort of negligence—breach of duty. Breach occurs where a defendant has fallen below the particular standard of care demanded by the law. This is largely an objective test and is determined by comparing the actions of the defendant to those imagined to be done in the same circumstances by the so-called ‘reasonable man’. The questions to be answered are how the defendant ought to have behaved (what was the required standard of care) and how the defendant did behave (did they in fact fall below that standard).

8. Breach of duty: the standard of care

2021 ◽  
pp. 217-250
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Objective Test ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law

This chapter focuses on the second of the requirements necessary to establish a claim in the tort of negligence—breach of duty. Breach occurs where a defendant has fallen below the particular standard of care demanded by the law. This is largely an objective test and is determined by comparing the actions of the defendant to those imagined to be done in the same circumstances by the so-called ‘reasonable man’. The questions to be answered are how the defendant ought to have behaved (what was the required standard of care) and how the defendant did behave (did they in fact fall below that standard).

6. Breach of duty: the standard of care

2019 ◽  
pp. 60-72
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Standard ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.

6. Breach of duty

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-74
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Standard ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.

8. Breach of duty: the standard of care

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Objective Test ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law

This chapter focuses on the second of the requirements necessary to establish a claim in the tort of negligence—breach of duty. Breach occurs where a defendant has fallen below the particular standard of care demanded by the law. This is largely an objective test and is determined by comparing the actions of the defendant to those imagined to be done in the same circumstances by the so-called ‘reasonable man’.

An Ethicolegal Analysis of Involuntary Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-740
Author(s):  
Farhad R. Udwadia ◽  
Judy Illes
Keyword(s):  
Police Officers ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Mandated ◽  
Ethical Critique

Supply-side interventions such as prescription drug monitoring programs, “pill mill” laws, and dispensing limits have done little to quell the burgeoning opioid crisis. An increasingly popular demand-side alternative to these measures – now adopted by 38 jurisdictions in the USA and 7 provinces in Canada — is court-mandated involuntary commitment and treatment. In Massachusetts, for example, Part I, Chapter 123, Section 35 of the state's General Laws allows physicians, spouses, relatives, and police officers to petition a court to involuntarily commit and treat a person whose alcohol or drug abuse poses a likelihood of serious harm. This paper explores the ethical underpinnings of this law as a case study for others. First, we highlight the procedural and substantive standards of Section 35 and evaluate the application of the law in practice, including the frequency with which it has been invoked and outcomes. We then use this background to inform an ethical critique of the law. Specifically, we argue that the infringement of autonomy and privacy associated with involuntary intervention under Section 35 is not currently justified on the grounds of a lack of evidenced benefits and a risk of significant of harm. Further ethical concerns also arise from a lack of standard of care provided under the Section 35 pathway. Based on this analysis, we advance four recommendations for change to mitigate these ethical shortcomings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document