Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263

Facts

  • Mr. Tarleton, a lorry driver employed by Weetabix, was unknowingly suffering from a malignant insulinoma causing hypoglycemia, which impaired his brain function and ability to drive.
  • While driving, he entered a hypoglycemic state that diminished his capacity, leading to a crash into the claimant's property.
  • Mr. Tarleton was not fully unconscious but was unaware of his impairment at the time of the accident.
  • Medical evidence confirmed that had he realized his condition, he would have stopped driving to avoid causing harm.
  • The legal question arose whether the standard of care for a driver should account for an unknown medical condition.

Issues

  1. Whether the standard of care in negligence should be modified for a defendant whose capacity is unknowingly impaired by a medical condition.
  2. Whether Mr. Tarleton could be held liable for breach of duty given his lack of awareness of his impairment at the time of the accident.
  3. Whether strict liability should apply in cases of harm caused by individuals suffering from undiscovered medical impairments.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal determined that the standard of care required was that of a reasonably competent driver who is unaware of any impairment affecting his ability to drive.
  • The court concluded that Mr. Tarleton had not breached his duty of care, as he could not have reasonably known about his condition.
  • The appeal was allowed, and Mr. Tarleton (Weetabix) was not held liable for the damage caused.
  • The court rejected the imposition of strict liability in these circumstances.

Legal Principles

  • The standard of care in negligence is generally objective, but can be modified if the defendant suffers from an unknown medical impairment.
  • Individuals should not be required to guard against risks arising from conditions they could not reasonably have known about.
  • The ruling distinguished between negligence and strict liability, clarifying that liability in tort should reflect the defendant’s knowledge and circumstances.
  • The judgment does not excuse all impairments, only those of which the defendant was genuinely unaware.
  • The case contrasts with later authority, particularly Dunnage v Randall, which rejected consideration of certain types of impairment.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd established that a defendant is to be judged against the standard of a reasonably competent person unaware of their impairment, thereby introducing a necessary modification to the objective standard of care in negligence where undiagnosed medical conditions are involved and rejecting strict liability in such cases.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal