BREACH OF DUTY
~ Liability in Negligence ~
1. Reasonable Person Standard
Breach is assessed objectively: what a reasonable person would do, not the defendant’s personal view (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks [1856]).
Standard is normal competence, not extreme caution or recklessness.
2. Special Categories of Defendant
Skilled Professionals → judged against a competent professional in the field (Bolam [1957]; Philips v Whiteley[1938]).
Inexperienced Learners → standard of care is that of a competent person; inexperience is no defence (Wilsher v Essex AHA [1986]; Nettleship v Weston [1971]).
Children → standard adjusted to age and ability (Mullin v Richards [1998]; Gorely v Codd [1967]).
3. Risk Factors Affecting Breach
Special Characteristics of the Claimant: Higher care owed if the defendant knows of specific vulnerabilities (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]).
Precautions / Practicality: Reasonable steps required, but perfection is not expected; cost and practicality considered (Latimer v AEC Ltd[1953]).
Magnitude of the Risk: Greater foreseeable risk → greater care required. Minor risk may not require action (Bolton v Stone [1951]; Haley v London Electricity Board [1965]).
Known Risks: Liability only for risks known or reasonably discoverable at the time (Roe v Minister of Health [1954]).
Public Benefit / Emergencies: Courts allow greater risk where actions serve public interest or emergencies (Day v High Performance Sports[2003]).
