Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Breach of Duty (Reasonable Care - Relevant considerations (Utility of…
Breach of Duty
Reasonable Care - Relevant considerations
Gravity of potential harm
Paris V Stepney Borough Council (1951)
Cost of precautions
Latimer V AEC Ltd (1953)
Utility of defendants conduct
Watt V Hertfordshire County Council (1954)
Tomlinson V Congleton Borough Council (2004)
Compensation Act 2006
Hopps V Mott McDonald Ltd (2009)
Likelihood of harm
Bolton V Stone
Miller V Jackson
Negligence judged from the defendants point of view
Roe V Minister if Health (1954)
Woolridge V Sumner (1963)
Unless there was a reckless disregard of safety no duty of care would be owed.
Condon V Basi (1985) "reckless disregard"
Elliot V Saunders (1994)
Objective standard of care
Lack of skill and experience
Nettership V Weston (1971)
Professional situations
Wilsher V Essex AHA (1987)
Alternative medicine
Shakoor V Situ (2001)
Sporting Skill
Condon V Basi (1985)
Physical and mental disability
Manfield V Weetabix Ltd (1998)
The standard of care was that which is to be expected of a reasonably competent driver unaware that he is suffering from a condition that impairs his ability to drive. To apply an objective standard notwithstanding his disability would be to impose strict liability and that is not the law.
Legatt LJ**
Age
Mullin V Richards (1998)
Special Skills
Philips V Whiteley (William) Ltd (1938)
Common Practise
Common Industrial Practise
Brown V Rolls Royce (1960)
Stokes V GKN (1968)
Common Professional Practise (Professional Standards)
Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)
Bolitho V City and Hackney Health Authority (1998)
Pearce V United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust (1999)
Mayanard , Sidaway, expansive version of Bolam test. Earlier case Hills V Potter (1984) held the doctor acted negligently in taking an easily avoidable risk.