3. Breach of duty

2020 ◽  
pp. 59-79
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Basic Standard ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. The first step in establishing a negligence claim is to prove that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. The claimant must then show that the defendant has been negligent, that is, has breached that duty. To determine negligence, one must therefore establish how the defendant ought to have behaved in the circumstances (that is, standard of care) and whether the defendant’s behaviour fell below the desired standard (that is, breach). The basic standard of care in negligence is objectively assessed: that of the reasonable man. The objective standard can at times appear to work particularly harshly against a defendant, as exemplified by the case Nettleship v Weston (1971). This chapter examines breach of duty and the standard of care, the proof of negligence, and the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur. It also discusses the Compensation Act 2006 which addresses the problem of the so-called compensation culture.

3. Negligence II: Breach of Duty

2019 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Dr Karen Dyer
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Sporting Events ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Special Skill ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses negligence in terms of breach of duty. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the concept of duty of care in negligence; the objective standard of care: the ‘reasonable person’ and factors relevant to the standard of care; variations of the objective standard: children, emergency situations, sporting events, and skilled persons ‘professing to have a special skill’; and res ipsa loquitur.

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.

4. Breach of duty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Key Points ◽  
History Of ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Way ◽  
Public Bodies

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Negligence is a tort in its own right and involves an unintentional wrong as opposed to trespass which involves an intentional wrong. It has three main elements: duty of care (whether the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care), breach (whether the defendant has broken that duty), and damage (whether that breach has caused damage of a legally recognized kind to the claimant). Duty of care is determined by proximity, foreseeability, and policy and is most likely to be established in cases of positive acts which cause physical injury or property damage. This chapter provides an overview of the history of negligence and discusses the function of duty of care in negligence. It also considers the way duty of care has been defined and developed and applies the principles of duty of care in the areas of omissions and liability of public bodies.

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. 131-162
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

This chapter examines breach of duty in negligence. It discusses the factors that courts consider in determining whether defendants are in breach of their duties of care to claimants. In each case, these factors 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. The chapter considers also special issues involving proof of breach, most importantly in the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

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.

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.

2. Negligence: duty of care

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-58
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan ◽  
Vera Bermingham
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Physical Injury ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Key Points ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Way ◽  
Public Bodies

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Negligence is a tort in its own right and involves an unintentional wrong as opposed to trespass which involves an intentional wrong. It has three main elements: duty of care (whether the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care), breach (whether the defendant has breached that duty), and damage (whether that breach has caused damage of a legally recognized kind to the claimant). Duty of care is determined by proximity, foreseeability, and policy and is most likely to be established in cases of positive acts which cause physical injury or property damage. This chapter provides an overview of the history of negligence and discusses the function of duty of care in negligence. It also considers the way duty of care has been defined and developed and applies the principles of duty of care in the areas of omissions and liability of public bodies.

9. Employers’ liability and non-delegable duties

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Common

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. While tort law is largely based on case law developed by judges through the common law, the liability of occupiers for the injuries suffered by those on their premises is governed by two statutes: the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The chapter explains the scope of an occupier’s liability and how it relates to other aspects of negligence, considers the duty of care owed by occupiers to lawful visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, discusses the duty of care owed by occupiers to trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and how it relates to the previous common law duty of care.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document