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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
Children: Judged by the standard of a child of similar age, as established in Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920.
-
Individuals with Disabilities: The standard adjusts for physical disabilities but not mental ones, as shown in Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673.
-
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:
- The event typically wouldn't happen without negligence
- The defendant controlled the situation
- 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.