Breach of duty - Current state of knowledge

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 If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate.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 from the use of the content on this page. 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.

Overview

Breach of duty is a central concept in negligence law, necessary for establishing liability. This article examines the application of the reasonable person standard, specific considerations for different defendants, and techniques for proving breaches in court. By looking at case law, policy issues, and practical examples, we aim to provide a complete view of breach of duty, fundamental for the SQE1 FLK1 exam and future legal work.

The Reasonable Person Standard: Basis and Use

The core of assessing breach of duty lies in the reasonable person standard—an objective measure focusing on typical behavioral expectations. This standard offers a consistent framework for evaluating negligence in various situations.

Framework

The reasonable person is envisioned as someone exercising ordinary caution under given circumstances. This idea helps courts maintain objectivity, balancing the need for a universal standard with recognition of specific contexts.

Judicial Use

In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856] 11 Ex 781, Baron Alderson described the reasonable person as one who "uses that degree of care and caution which a person of ordinary prudence would use in the same circumstances." This definition has shaped judicial decisions over time.

Example: The Busy Restaurant

Picture a busy restaurant where a server misses a spilled drink, leading a patron to slip and get hurt. The court would apply the reasonable person standard: would a reasonable server have addressed the spill? This example illustrates the practical use of the standard.

Factors Altering the Standard of Care

Several key factors influence how courts determine breach of duty:

  1. Probability and Seriousness of Harm: As shown in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, courts consider the chance of harm against its potential severity. Higher risk of serious harm demands a higher standard of care.

  2. Cost and Practicality of Precautions: In Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643, the balance between preventive measures' cost and practicality is emphasized. Courts assess whether precautions are reasonable given the risk.

  3. Social Utility of the Activity: Activities with social value may have a higher threshold for breach, as seen in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835, involving emergency services.

  4. Professional Standards (The Bolam Test): In professional negligence cases, like Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, this test asserts that a professional isn't negligent if they follow accepted practice in their field.

Example: The "Egg-Shell Skull" Rule

The "egg-shell skull" rule is important in negligence law, especially for psychiatric harm cases. It means the defendant takes the victim as they are, including any pre-existing conditions. If a minor injury triggers a mental health issue, the defendant is liable for all resulting harm.

Special Standards of Care

Certain groups require modified care standards, considering unique circumstances or abilities:

  1. Children: Judged by the standard of a child of similar age, as established in Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920.

  2. Individuals with Disabilities: The standard adjusts for physical disabilities but not mental ones, as shown in Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673.

  3. Professionals: Held to the standard of a reasonably competent professional, as in the Bolam test and refined in cases like Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232.

Example: The Novice Professional

A new architect designs a building that develops issues. The court compares their actions to those of a reasonably competent architect. This shows the careful application of professional standards, considering experience.

Proving Breach: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Establishing breach often relies on direct evidence. However, when evidence is lacking, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") may apply.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

This allows an inference of negligence when:

  1. The event typically wouldn't happen without negligence
  2. The defendant controlled the situation
  3. There's no sign of the claimant's contribution

The case Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865) 3 H&C 596 established these ideas.

Limitations

While useful, res ipsa loquitur can lead to unfair assumptions, so courts apply it cautiously, as seen in Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat [1988] RTR 298.

Example: The Collapsed Scaffolding

At a construction site, scaffolding collapses, injuring someone. Without direct evidence, the claimant invokes res ipsa loquitur. The court examines whether such an event usually indicates negligence and if the construction company had control over the scaffold.

Interconnection with Other Negligence Elements

Understanding breach of duty involves considering its relation to other negligence elements, like duty of care and causation.

Duty and Breach

While duty of care sets the obligation, breach determines if it was met. The scope of duty influences breach assessment, as in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.

Causation

Proving breach isn't enough; the breach must have caused the harm. The "but for" test, as seen in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428, links breach to liability.

Policy Considerations

Courts consider wider policy issues when assessing breach, balancing justice with societal interests. This is evident in cases like Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47.

Conclusion

Breach of duty is a complex area of negligence law, key for the SQE1 FLK1 exam. Its assessment demands understanding the reasonable person standard, factors like harm probability, cost of precautions, and social utility. Special standards and the res ipsa loquitur doctrine add complexities for future solicitors. By connecting these with broader negligence principles and policy issues, students can prepare for exam success and their legal careers.