11. Duty of care, skill, and independent judgement

Company Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda Hannigan
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Fiduciary Obligations

In addition to their fiduciary obligations, directors are subject to duties of care and skill. This chapter discusses the statutory standard of care, skill, and diligence; the content of the duty; and the duty to exercise independent judgement.

11. Duty of care, skill, and independent judgment

2021 ◽  
pp. 204-222
Author(s):  
Brenda Hannigan
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Executive Directors ◽  
Fiduciary Obligations ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Level Of Knowledge

In addition to their fiduciary obligations, directors are subject to duties of care and skill. This chapter discusses the statutory standard of care, skill, and diligence; the content of the duty; and the duty to exercise independent judgement. In looking at care and skill, key issues are the extent to which delegation is possible and the degree to which the delegating director must maintain a residual duty of supervision. The chapter considers the law’s expectations of executive and non-executive directors, including the level of knowledge that they must bring to bear and examines how the standard required reflects their differing roles in the management of the business.

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.

The Enduring Legacy of ‘Reckless Disregard’

2005 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McArdle
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Canadian Province ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Personal injury at common law has spawned many cases where sports participants have inflicted injury either upon other participants or upon spectators/bystanders. This paper is not an exhaustive analysis of those ‘sports torts' cases but focuses instead upon the impact of Wooldridge v Sumner, a Court of Appeal decision that was legally sound but based upon highly significant errors of fact, and which has subsequently been advanced before the courts in two jurisdictions as authority for untenable propositions that concern both the standard of care and the duty of care owed by sports participants. While a consideration of the authorities prior to Wooldridge illustrates that there was never a basis at common law for the argument that either the standard or the duty of care differed from that pertaining in non-sporting contexts, the case has been appropriated by counsel in order to argue along those lines even though Wooldridge is not authority for either proposition. On some occasions those arguments have actually received the support of the courts of England and Wales and of the Canadian Province of British Columbia. Despite the existence in both jurisdictions of more recent authorities that ought to have heralded the demise of both concepts, they have proved remarkably tenacious.

Liability in negligence of the mentally ill

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 366-374
Author(s):  
Maria Orchard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Court Of Appeal

An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objective standard of a reasonable person and does not take into account a defendant’s personal characteristics. In Dunnage v Randall, the Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether a person’s mental illness should be considered when defining the appropriate standard of care. The court held that the deceased, an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who set himself on fire, was subject to the objective standard, breached his duty by failing to act with reasonable care and was therefore liable for the burns his nephew sustained while attempting to prevent the incident. The court further found that a defendant can only escape liability for negligently caused injury if their mental illness entirely eliminates responsibility, thus articulating a strict approach towards the liability in tort of persons suffering from mental illness. As this comment will discuss, the Dunnage decision is a handy illustration of the basic tenets of the tort of negligence, revealing the policy considerations at play and questioning the underlying rationale of the tort law regime.

scholarly journals Innovation in Establishing the Standard of Care in a Self-Regulated Profession

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-194
Author(s):  
Lindsay Steele
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Professional Practice ◽  
Cape Town ◽  
Professional Community ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Afrique Du Sud ◽  
Innovative Solutions ◽  
The World

Under Law, professional geoscientists have a duty of care that they must adhere to when they carry out their activities. The question is, when a duty of care exists, what is the standard of care that is owed? Geoscience regulators in Canada and around the world are working with geoscientists to develop innovative solutions in establishing the standard of care that must be met. By clearly establishing what our expectations are concerning standard of care, we are setting common ideals and goals as a professional community. Both society, geoscientists and employers of geoscientists look to regulatory associations for guidance on professional practice, therefore regulators need to strive to support and educate their members by developing tools and resources that allow members to meet the standard of care expected of them. The paper describes innovative approaches being offered to assist members of Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia and is based on an oral presentation given by the author at the International Geology Congress in Cape Town South Africa in August 2016.RÉSUMÉEn vertu de la loi, les géoscientifiques professionnels ont un devoir de diligence auquel ils doivent se conformer dans l'exercice de leurs activités. La question qui se pose est la suivante : lorsqu'il existe un devoir de diligence, quelle est la norme de diligence à respecter? Les organismes de réglementation géoscientifiques au Canada, et ailleurs dans le monde, travaillent de concert avec les géoscientifiques à l'élaboration de solutions novatrices pour établir la norme de diligence à respecter. En établissant clairement nos attentes concernant les normes de diligence, nous établissons des idéaux et des objectifs communs en tant que regroupement professionnel. La société, les géoscientifiques et leurs employeurs attendent des associations de réglementation des conseils sur les usages professionnels. Les organismes de réglementation doivent donc s'efforcer de soutenir et former leurs membres en dotant des outils et des ressources qui leur permettent de respecter les normes d'usage en vigueur. L’article qui suit, et qui décrit les approches novatrices proposées aux membres de la Engineers and Geoscientist British Columbia est basé sur une présentation orale donnée par l'auteur au Congrès international de géologie à Cape Town, en Afrique du Sud, en août 2016.

2. Duty of care: basic principles

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Basic Principles

This chapter sets out the basic principles of negligence. Duty is one element in the tort of negligence, for it must be shown that not only was the defendant under a duty towards the claimant to be careful, but also that he failed to achieve the required standard of care and that that failure caused the damage, and finally that the damage was not too remote a consequence of the act. Duty is about relationships, and it must be shown that the particular defendant stood in the required relationship to the claimant such that he came under an obligation to use care towards him. This relationship is sometimes referred to as ‘proximity’. The chapter presents cases to illustrate the meaning of proximity. It also discusses the unforeseeable claimant problem and policy factors.

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.

5. Breach of Duty

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Breach Of Duty

This chapter examines breach of duty in tort law. It discusses the factors that the court considers in determining whether the defendant is in breach of his duty of care to the claimant. These include the foreseeability of harm to the claimant, the appropriate standard of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, and the conduct of the defendant in comparison to the expected standard of care. This chapter suggests that the question of whether the defendant has breached a duty of care is a mixed one of law and fact and that the standard of care required of the defendant is an exclusively legal construct and based on the standard of a hypothetical reasonable person.

2. Medical negligence

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-36
Author(s):  
Jo Samanta ◽  
Ash Samanta
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Medical Negligence ◽  
Good Samaritan ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Patient Relationships

This chapter deals with medical negligence and how claims can be brought in the tort of negligence via three requirements: the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care; the defendant’s performance fell below the standard expected; and that the claimant’s injury was caused by the breach of duty. The duty of care in doctor–patient relationships and in ‘good Samaritan’ situations is considered. The Bolam test is discussed, which is used to judge the standard of care expected from doctors (subject to the Bolitho principle), as well as tests to establish causation, such as the ‘but for’ test. Relevant cases are cited, where appropriate. Criminal negligence is also discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document