Embracing Diversity Challenging Minds
Breach of duty
Breach of duty is defined as when defendant has fallen below the standard of care required by law. Once it has been established that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the claimant must prove that the defendant was in breach of duty.
-------------------------------------------------
A breach of duty occurs when defendant has not taken care, i.e. has been negligent.
STANDARD OF CARE
Breach of duty in negligence liability is decided by the objective test, i.e. the defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person.
This test is from the case of:
Vaughan V Menlove
The defendant's haystack caught fire due to poor ventilation. Defendant had insured it, therefore would lose nothing if it caught fire. Defendant argued that he acted honestly and in accordance with his own best judgment of risk.
Held: this was not enough, because in such a situation, a reasonable person would have taken precautions.
The objective test can be variable and may depend on the circumstances of the particular defendant or the situation. E.g. An amateur footballer is not expected to meet the standard of a footballer in the first division.
Nettleship V Weston
The defendant was a learner driver. She was taking lessons from a friend. The friend checked that the defendant's insurance covered her for passengers before agreeing to go out with her. On one of the lessons Mrs Weston turned a bend, Mr Nettleship told her to straighten the wheel but Mrs Weston panicked and failed to straighten the wheel. She approached the pavement and Mr Nettleship grabbed the handbrake and tried to straighten the wheel but it was too late. She mounted the pavement and hit a lamp post. Mr Nettleship fractured his knee. The defendant argued that the standard of care should be lowered for learner drivers and she also raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that in agreeing to get in the car knowing she was a learner, he had voluntarily accepted the risk.
Held:
A
Breach of duty is defined as when defendant has fallen below the standard of care required by law. Once it has been established that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the claimant must prove that the defendant was in breach of duty.
-------------------------------------------------
A breach of duty occurs when defendant has not taken care, i.e. has been negligent.
STANDARD OF CARE
Breach of duty in negligence liability is decided by the objective test, i.e. the defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person.
This test is from the case of:
Vaughan V Menlove
The defendant's haystack caught fire due to poor ventilation. Defendant had insured it, therefore would lose nothing if it caught fire. Defendant argued that he acted honestly and in accordance with his own best judgment of risk.
Held: this was not enough, because in such a situation, a reasonable person would have taken precautions.
The objective test can be variable and may depend on the circumstances of the particular defendant or the situation. E.g. An amateur footballer is not expected to meet the standard of a footballer in the first division.
Nettleship V Weston
The defendant was a learner driver. She was taking lessons from a friend. The friend checked that the defendant's insurance covered her for passengers before agreeing to go out with her. On one of the lessons Mrs Weston turned a bend, Mr Nettleship told her to straighten the wheel but Mrs Weston panicked and failed to straighten the wheel. She approached the pavement and Mr Nettleship grabbed the handbrake and tried to straighten the wheel but it was too late. She mounted the pavement and hit a lamp post. Mr Nettleship fractured his knee. The defendant argued that the standard of care should be lowered for learner drivers and she also raised the defence of volenti non fit injuria in that in agreeing to get in the car knowing she was a learner, he had voluntarily accepted the risk.
Held:
A