Learning Outcomes
This article examines how the standard of care in negligence is adjusted when a defendant is affected by illness or disability. It outlines the general objective standard and explores the specific modifications applied by the courts in situations involving defendants with physical or mental impairments, including considerations of awareness and foreseeability. Your understanding of these principles will assist you in analysing breach of duty scenarios for the SQE1 assessment and applying the correct legal standards to single best answer MCQs.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you need to understand how the standard of care in negligence may be modified to account for a defendant's illness or disability. This involves appreciating the interplay between the objective reasonable person test and the specific circumstances of the defendant. Your revision should focus on:
- The general objective standard of care in negligence.
- How the standard may be adjusted for defendants with physical illnesses, considering their awareness of the condition.
- How the standard applies to defendants suffering from mental disabilities.
- The standard of care expected of child defendants.
- The key principles established in relevant case law regarding illness and disability affecting breach of duty.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
- What is the general standard of care applied in the tort of negligence?
- In Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd, why was the defendant driver found not to have breached his duty of care?
- True or False: A defendant who is aware they are suffering from a condition that might impair their ability to drive, but continues to drive, will be judged by the standard of a reasonably competent driver unaware of such a condition.
- How does the standard of care differ for a child defendant compared to an adult defendant?
Introduction
Establishing a breach of duty is a key element in proving negligence. It requires demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care expected by law. This standard is generally objective – that of the ‘reasonable person’. However, complexities arise when the defendant suffers from an illness or disability at the time of the alleged breach. The courts have developed specific approaches to determine the appropriate standard of care in these situations, balancing the need to hold individuals accountable with the recognition of limitations imposed by physical or mental conditions. This article explores these modifications to the standard of care.
The General Standard of Care
The fundamental principle is that defendants are judged by the standard of the hypothetical ‘reasonable person’. This objective test disregards the defendant’s individual idiosyncrasies, such as being inexperienced or clumsy.
Key Term: Standard of Care The level of care expected by law from a person in particular circumstances to avoid causing harm to others. In negligence, this is typically the standard of the 'reasonable person'.
Key Term: Reasonable Person A hypothetical individual used as a legal standard to determine whether conduct was negligent. This person exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests.
The objective nature of this test ensures a consistent benchmark. However, strict application without considering personal circumstances like illness could lead to harsh outcomes.
Physical Illness and Impairment
The courts have considered how physical illness affects the standard of care, particularly in cases involving drivers. A key distinction is often drawn based on the defendant's awareness of their condition.
Unforeseeable or Unknown Conditions
If a defendant suffers a sudden, disabling event of which they had no prior warning and could not reasonably have foreseen, they may not be found in breach of duty. Their actions are judged against the standard of a reasonably competent person who is unaware of suffering from such a condition.
Worked Example 1.1
David is driving when he suddenly and unexpectedly suffers a severe hypoglycemic attack, causing him to lose control of his lorry and crash into Clare's shop. David had never experienced such an attack before and had no medical history suggesting he was at risk. Clare sues David in negligence. Is David likely to be found in breach of his duty of care?
Answer: No. Based on Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263, David would likely not be found in breach. The standard of care is that of a reasonably competent driver unaware that he is suffering from a condition that impairs his ability to drive. As David was unaware of his condition and the attack was sudden and unexpected, his conduct did not fall below this standard.
Known Conditions
Conversely, if a defendant is aware, or should reasonably be aware, of a condition that could impair their ability to perform a task safely, they are generally expected to take precautions. Continuing an activity, such as driving, despite knowing of a potentially impairing condition, may constitute a breach of duty. The standard applied is that of a reasonable person aware of their condition.
Worked Example 1.2
Paul realises while driving that his vision is becoming significantly blurred and he feels unwell. He suspects he might be having a stroke but decides to continue driving for another mile to get home. During this time, he collides with another vehicle due to his impaired vision. Is Paul likely to be found in breach of his duty of care?
Answer: Yes. Paul became aware of symptoms that should have indicated he was unfit to drive. By continuing to drive despite this awareness, his conduct fell below the standard expected of a reasonable driver aware of such impairing symptoms. This aligns with the principle in Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823, where the driver was found liable because he continued driving after becoming aware of stroke symptoms.
Exam Warning
Be careful to distinguish between a defendant being suddenly incapacitated without warning (Mansfield) and a defendant who continues an activity despite realising they are becoming unfit (Roberts). Awareness of the impairing condition is essential in determining the applicable standard and whether it has been breached.
Mental Illness and Disability
The application of the standard of care to defendants with mental illness or disabilities presents challenges. The law generally maintains an objective standard, reluctant to excuse defendants based on mental conditions unless the condition entirely eliminates fault.
The Objective Standard Maintained
Case law suggests that mental disability typically does not lower the standard of care expected. In Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant suffering from delusions due to schizophrenia, who unintentionally injured his nephew while setting himself on fire, was still required to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person. The court stated that only defendants whose medical condition entirely eliminates responsibility (e.g., rendering actions wholly involuntary) might be excused; otherwise, the objective standard applies.
This approach reflects a policy decision prioritising compensation for victims over accommodating the defendant's mental state, unless that state negates fault entirely.
Revision Tip
Remember that while physical conditions unknown to the defendant might prevent a breach (Mansfield), mental conditions generally do not lower the objective standard of care unless they negate fault altogether (Dunnage).
Children
The objective standard of care is modified for child defendants. A child is expected to show the level of care reasonably expected of an ordinary child of the same age.
Key Term: Child Standard of Care The standard of care expected of a child defendant, judged by the conduct reasonably expected of a child of the same age, intelligence, and experience.
In Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304, two 15-year-old schoolgirls were fencing with plastic rulers. One ruler shattered, blinding the claimant in one eye. The Court of Appeal held the defendant was not negligent, as an ordinary, reasonable 15-year-old would not have foreseen the risk of injury. This contrasts with the standard expected of an adult.
Summary
| Defendant's Condition | Applicable Standard of Care | Key Case Example(s) |
|---|---|---|
| General Adult | Objective standard of the 'reasonable person'. | Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) |
| Physical Illness (Unknown) | Standard of a reasonably competent person unaware of the condition. | Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] |
| Physical Illness (Known) | Standard of a reasonably competent person aware of the condition and expected to take appropriate precautions. | Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] |
| Mental Illness/Disability | Generally, the objective standard of the reasonable person, unless the condition entirely eliminates fault/responsibility. | Dunnage v Randall [2015] |
| Child | Objective standard adjusted for age – that of a reasonable child of the same age. | Mullin v Richards [1998] |
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The standard of care in negligence is generally objective, based on the 'reasonable person'.
- Physical illness may affect the standard of care, particularly concerning the defendant's awareness of the condition and its potential impact.
- A defendant unaware of a suddenly incapacitating condition may not be in breach (Mansfield v Weetabix).
- A defendant aware of an impairing condition who continues an activity may be in breach (Roberts v Ramsbottom).
- Mental illness generally does not lower the objective standard of care unless it entirely negates fault (Dunnage v Randall).
- The standard of care for children is adjusted to that of a reasonable child of the same age (Mullin v Richards).
Key Terms and Concepts
- Standard of Care
- Reasonable Person
- Child Standard of Care
