Breach of duty of care

Breach of duty of care

After it is proven that a person has a duty of care to another, it is necessary to prove that he/she breach this duty of care.

Breach of duty simply asks if the "person behave as the reasonable man would have in the same circumstances. The reasonable man is described as a person of average competence. Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co. described breach of duty as "the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something  which is prudent and a reasonable man would not do".

The standard of the reasonable man is an objective test and does not take into account any personal disabilities or attributes.

-  Nettleship v Weston illustrates the standard of care expected from learners where it was held that the defendant, a learner driver would be judged by the standard expected from a average competent driver.

- Bolam v FHMC described the standard of care expected from a professional like a doctors as being able to "show that he or she has the degree of competence usually expected from an ordinary skilled member that profession or acted in accordance in with a practice accepted by a recognized authority for that profession".

- Mullins v Richards described described the standard of care expected from a child as being "able to show the standard conduct that is expected from a reasonable child at the same age as the defendant".

Test to determine breach of duty

To help determine if a person breaches his/her duty of care, there are tests to established  and these are;

Degree of probability that harm will be done

Degree of probability that harm will be done. This test basically look if care has been taken in respect of a risk where it is reasonably foreseeable that harm or injury may occur.

- In Bolton v Stone, it was held that the higher the risk, the higher standard of care is expected to prevent that risk.

- In Haley v LEB, it held the defendant breach his duty of care as their safety measures were not enough to cover blind people like the victim.

Magnitude of likely harm

The court must consider not only the risk of harm but also how serious that harm can potentially bring.

- In Paris v SBC, the defendants were held to be liable as the greater the the level of harm in a risk to the claimant, the greater precautions must be taken.

Cost and practicality of preventing the risk

If the cost of taking the precautions to eliminate the risk are completely disproportionate to the extent if the risk itself, the defendant will not be liable as shown in Latimer v AEC.

Potential benefits of the risks

The court usually weighs up any potential benefits of a risk to the society as in Watt v HCC where the court held that the risk of harm to the claimant, a firefighter was not so great as to prohibit an attempt to save a life.