100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Duty of care in the law of negligence £7.49   Add to cart

Lecture notes

Duty of care in the law of negligence

 6 views  0 purchase

Duty of care in negligence

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

  • October 28, 2021
  • 4
  • 2020/2021
  • Lecture notes
  • N/a
  • Duty of care in negligence
book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:
All documents for this subject (5)
avatar-seller
littlelad1314
Claimant bears the burden to prove breach of duty is conduct that falls below standard of care
expected from a reasonable person

Conduct
Wrongful conduct
 Negligence is the omission (failure) to do something which a reasonable man would do, or
something which a prudent/reasonable man would not do.
o Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
 What defendant actually did - rather than state of mind
 Is question of fact
o Depends on evidence
 Is generally not appealable

Reasonable person:
 Fictional person
o Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) - Omnibus
o MacFarlane - London Underground
 If reasonable person wouldn't have done anything differently from defendant, not liable
 How does court decide?
o Foresight not Hindsight
o Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
 Hospital staff put ampules in disinfectant
 Seeped through glass - wasn't foreseeable
 Didn't know it was able to seep through


Standard of Care
Balancing process between:
 Risk
o That was reasonably foreseeable
o If reasonable person with defendant's knowledge and in their position would have
foreseen the risks - defendant should have foreseen risks
 Precautionary steps defendant should have taken in response to risks

Risk
 Must be reasonably foreseeable
 If reasonable person with D's knowledge and in D's position would have foreseen risk, D
should have foreseen risk
 Ordinary members of the public contrast with specialists/professionals

Ordinary members of public:
 Compared to reasonable person doing same activity
 Whiting v First/Transpenine Ltd (2018)
o Failed to spot claimant (drunk) staggering towards train

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller littlelad1314. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67232 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£7.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart