Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will understand the objective standard of care applied to adults in negligence law. You will be able to explain why inexperience does not lower the standard, identify the reasonable person test, and distinguish the main exceptions. You will also be able to apply these principles to SQE1-style problem scenarios and avoid common exam pitfalls.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required to understand how the standard of care is determined for adult defendants in negligence. In your revision, focus on:
- the objective nature of the standard of care for adults
- the application of the reasonable person test
- why inexperience or lack of skill does not reduce the standard
- the main exceptions to the rule (children, physical or mental impairment, emergencies)
- how these principles are applied in professional and non-professional contexts
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 standard of care applied to an adult defendant in a negligence claim?
- Does a learner driver owe the same standard of care as an experienced driver?
- Which of the following is an exception to the objective standard of care for adults? a) Inexperience b) Physical impairment c) Lack of training d) Forgetfulness
- True or false? A newly qualified doctor is held to a lower standard of care than a senior consultant.
Introduction
In negligence law, the standard of care is a key element in determining whether a defendant has breached their duty. For adults, the law applies a fixed, objective standard: the actions of a reasonable person. This standard does not change because of inexperience, lack of training, or personal shortcomings. Understanding this principle is essential for answering SQE1 questions on breach of duty.
The Objective Standard of Care for Adults
The law judges adults by the same standard: that of a reasonable person in the defendant’s position. This is known as the objective standard of care.
Key Term: objective standard of care The legal test that measures a defendant’s conduct against what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, regardless of the defendant’s personal attributes.
The Reasonable Person Test
The reasonable person is a hypothetical individual who exercises ordinary prudence, foresight, and caution. The test asks: Would a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position, have acted differently?
Key Term: reasonable person A notional person of average intelligence and experience, used as a benchmark for assessing conduct in negligence claims.
Inexperience Is No Defence
Adults cannot argue that their lack of experience or skill excuses careless conduct. The law expects adults to recognise their limitations and either avoid risky activities or take proper precautions.
Worked Example 1.1
A learner driver causes a collision while taking their first lesson. Can they argue that their inexperience means they should not be liable for the accident?
Answer: No. The learner driver is held to the standard of a reasonably competent driver. Inexperience does not lower the standard of care.
Application to Professionals
Professionals are judged by the standard of a reasonably competent member of their profession, not by their own level of experience.
Worked Example 1.2
A newly qualified doctor fails to diagnose a common illness that a competent doctor would have identified. Is the standard of care lower because the doctor is inexperienced?
Answer: No. The newly qualified doctor is held to the standard of a reasonably competent doctor in that field. Inexperience is not a defence.
Exceptions to the Objective Standard
While the standard for adults is fixed, there are limited exceptions:
- Children: The standard is adjusted to what is reasonable for a child of similar age and experience.
- Physical or Mental Impairment: In rare cases, the standard may be modified if the defendant is suddenly incapacitated by an unforeseen condition.
- Emergencies: The law may consider the pressure of an emergency when assessing reasonableness, but the standard remains objective.
Key Term: exception to the objective standard A situation where the law modifies the reasonable person test to account for age, sudden incapacity, or emergencies.
Worked Example 1.3
A 14-year-old causes injury while cycling carelessly. Is the standard of care the same as for an adult?
Answer: No. The standard is that of a reasonable 14-year-old, not an adult.
Key Term: professional standard of care The standard applied to a defendant who holds themselves out as having a particular skill or profession, measured against a competent member of that profession.
Policy Reasons for a Fixed Standard
The law maintains a fixed standard for adults to:
- ensure predictability and fairness in negligence claims
- protect the public by encouraging responsible behaviour
- prevent defendants from escaping liability by claiming ignorance or lack of skill
Exam Warning
A common mistake is to assume that inexperience or being a trainee reduces the standard of care. For SQE1, always apply the objective standard unless a clear exception applies.
Summary
The standard of care for adults in negligence is objective and does not change because of inexperience or lack of skill. Adults are judged by the reasonable person test. Only limited exceptions—such as for children or sudden incapacity—apply. Professionals are held to the standard of a competent member of their field, regardless of experience.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The standard of care for adults in negligence is objective and fixed.
- Inexperience or lack of training does not lower the standard for adults.
- The reasonable person test is used to assess breach of duty.
- Professionals are judged by the standard of a competent member of their field.
- Exceptions apply only for children, sudden incapacity, or emergencies.
Key Terms and Concepts
- objective standard of care
- reasonable person
- exception to the objective standard
- professional standard of care
