1. Breach of Duty

2. The Reasonable Man
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. - D must breach their duty of care by failing to reach the standard of care of the reasonable man
Reasonable man is the ordinary person performing the particular task – he is expected to perform it reasonably competently
E.g. if I ride a bicycle I am expected to be a reasonably competent cyclist
Objective standard
Standard expected of the reasonable man will vary depending on the individual skills expected on that type of person

3. Types of Reasonable Man - The Learner
Nettleship v Weston – C was a non-professional driving instructor and D was a learner driver on her 3rd lesson. D failed to straighten up the car after turning a corner at a road junction and hit a lamppost, injuring the instructor. Court held that the learner driver’s standard of driving should be that of the reasonably competent driver, not a learner driver
Will equally apply to chefs, beauticians etc.

4. Types of Reasonable Man – the Professional
If D is a professional person and has special skills, they are compared to an average experienced person within that profession
Principle for professionals is established by asking 2 questions:
Does D’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary competent professional?
Is there a substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course taken by D?
If answer to 1st question is no and 2nd question is yes then D has reached the correct standard and there is no breach of duty of care
Bolom v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee – C suffered from mental illness and underwent electric shock treatment and suffered a broken bone. Hospital did not use relaxant drugs which would have reduced the risk of broken bones. Among medical experts there were two bodies of opinion – one favoured the use of relaxant drugs as general practice, and the other only used relaxant drugs to cases where there were particular reasons for their use which was not present in C’s case. Court held there was no breach of duty as the hospital had followed a substantial body of opinion within the profession that supported their course of action

5. Types of Reasonable Man – Young People
When D is not an adult, standard expected is of a reasonable person of D’s age.
Mullin v Richards – 2 15 year old friends were sitting side by side at their desk at school. They were playing around, hitting each other’s 30cm rulers as if in a sword fight when one of the rulers snapped and a fragment of plastic entered one girl’s eye and she lost sight in that eye. Court held that D was only expected to meet the standard of a reasonable 15 year old schoolgirl, and not that of a reasonable man (adult) – so not in breach of duty as she had reached the standard of behaviour required of a 15-year old.

6. Risk Factors Affecting the Standard of Care of the Reasonable Man
When court looks at whether a duty of care has been breached, it bases the standard on the reasonable man performing the task in the circumstances
Factors may raise or lower the standard expected
E.g. reasonable man may take greater risks in an emergency – e.g. I may damage a person’s clothing or cause minor injuries when pulling you from a burning car
E.g. reasonable man may take greater care when the risk of harm is greater – e.g. I will be more careful when carrying a baby than when I carry a sack of potatoes
Relevant Risk Factors:
Special characteristics of C
Size of the risk
Have all practical precautions been taken?
Benefits of taking the risk

7. Risk Factor 1 – Special Characteristics of C
If D knows of particular vulnerabilities of C, a higher standard of care might be expected than usual
Paris v Stepney Borough Council – C was employed as a fitter in a garage. His employer, the local council, knew he only had the use of one eye. While he was using a hammer to remove a bolt on a vehicle, a chip of metal flew off and entered his good eye – he became totally blind. Council did not provide goggles for him to wear as this was not standard practice in Had C have been fully sighted, the council might not have breached duty of care. But, as they knew he was blind in one eye, the court held the council owed him a higher standard of care because of this known increased risk

8. Risk Factor 2 – Size of Risk
The principle is that the greater the risk, the more care needs to be taken
Bolton v Stone – during a cricket match, a batsman struck a ball that hit a person who was standing outside her house on the road outside the ground. Ball was hit out of the ground over a protective fence 5 metres high. A ball had only been hit out of the ground in that direction 6 times in the previous 30 years, and no one had previously been injured. Court held that the risk of injury to a person from a ball being hit out of the ground was so small that the probability of it happening would not have been anticipated by a reasonable man – therefore cricket club had not breached its duty of care as it had reached the appropriate standard of care by erecting the fence

9. Risk Factor 3 – Have All Practical Precautions Been Taken?
D will have acted reasonably if he has taken reasonable precautions
E.g. B v S – fence around the cricket ground was reasonable precautions
Latimer v AEC – D’s factory was flooded after an exceptionally heavy rainstorm. Water mixed with some oil made the floor very slippery. D put up warning signs, passed the message around the workforce, and used all its supply of sand and sawdust to try and dry the floor. Despite this, C slipped and was injured. D owed a duty of care but had not breached the duty of care as all reasonable practical precautions had been taken in the circumstances

10. Risk Factor 4 – Benefits of Taking the Risk
Sometimes called public utility (usefulness)
If there is a benefit to taking the risk, this will be balanced with the risk
E.g. when reacting to an emergency
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council – firefighters were injured by lifting gear when travelling an a vehicle not specifically fitted for carrying that gear. The appropriate vehicle was already in use attending an emergency when the call came in to go to another emergency where a woman was trapped under a heavy vehicle. Court held that they must “balance the risk” – the benefit of saving the woman was greater than the risk of injuring firefighters by using a vehicle not suited to carrying the heavy gear – duty not breached