The * reasonable person * reasonable man *
The duty of care has been breached Law 02 the second sttage of negligence You have not started this quiz yet. You have 17 questions to answer.
————————————————- Top of Form 1. Breah of duty is the second stage of negligence. We can prove if there was a breach of duty by using the ‘….
…..
… ‘ test * reasonable person * reasonable man * degree of risk * standard of care 2. In this test there is an ‘..
…
……
…….
…
….
… ‘ where the defendant’s characteristics aren’t usually taken into account as demonstrated in the case Nettleship v Weston. Reasonable man * Reasonability standard * Operating standard * Objective standard 3. The Reasonable man test can be helped distinguished by establishing ..
. * ‘degree of risk’ and ‘standard of care’ factors. * Reasonable characteristics. * Objective standard of care. 4. Degree of risk factors are always used in the reasonable man test as the risk..
.. * because they are super cool * as they are key to the test * will amount to at least to one of them * will tell us what is reasonable. 5.
There are five ‘degree of risk’ factors.The case of Roe V Minister of Health shows an * Unknown Risk- for a breach of duty it is important the risk is forseeable however if the risk of harm or damage is not known then there is no breach of duty. * Small Risk – when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. * Small Risk but potential harm great – when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a easonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed. * Known Risk – when the risk is known and no steps are taken to guard against it then there is likely to be a breach of duty as a reasonable person would be expected to guard against it. * Justifiable Risk – it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it.
Such as balancing the benefits to society with the level of risk. 6. The case of Bolton v Stone shows a * substantially increase the risk or harm or damages; or create a new risk.
Small Risk – when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. * Small Risk but potential harm great – when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a reasonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed. * Justifiable Risk – it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it.Such as balancing the benefits to society with the level of risk. * Known Risk – when the risk is known and no steps are taken to guard against it then there is likely to be a breach of duty as a reasonable person would be expected to guard against it.
7. The case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council shows a * substantially increase the risk or harm or damages; or create a new risk. * Small Risk – when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. Small Risk but potential harm great – when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a reasonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed. * Justifiable Risk – it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it.
Such as balancing the benefits to society with the level of risk. * Known Risk – when the risk is known and no steps are taken to guard against it then there is likely to be a breach of duty as a reasonable person would be expected to uard against it. 8. The case of Haley v London electricity board shows a * substantially increase the risk or harm or damages; or create a new risk. * Small Risk – when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. * Small Risk but potential harm great – when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a reasonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed.
Justifiable Risk – it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it. Such as balancing the benefits to society with the level of risk. * Known Risk – when the risk is known and no steps are taken to guard against it then there is likely to be a breach of duty as a reasonable person would be expected to guard against it. 9.
The case of Watt v Hertfordshire County Council shows a * substantially increase the risk or harm or damages; or create a new risk. Small Risk – when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. * Small Risk but potential harm great – when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a reasonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed. * Justifiable Risk – it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it.Such as balancing the benefits to society with the level of risk. * Known Risk – when the risk is known and no steps are taken to guard against it then there is likely to be a breach of duty as a reasonable person would be expected to guard against it.
10. Paris v Stepney Borough Council shows what standard of care factor? * Practicality of taking precautions – The defendant is only expected to do what is reasonable to prevent harm. The courts consider the balance of risk involved against cost and practicality of preventing the risk. Standard Practice – When standard practice has been followed then this is shown as strong evidence of breach of duty * Raise standard if defendant is an expert – when the defendant is an expert of a profession then the standard of care is raised to the reasonable person of that profession. The skill is compared with the average person in that profession not the best or worst.
* Lower standard if defendant is a child – when the defendant is a child then we lower the standard of care then that of a reasonable adult. Consequences are greater for one individual – where the consequences of harm to a particular person are greater than other people, a higher standar of care needs to be applied to that person. 11. Latimer v AEC ltd shows what standard of care factor? * Practicality of taking precautions – The defendant is only expected to do what is reasonable to prevent harm. The courts consider the balance of risk involved against cost and practicality of preventing the risk. Standard Practice – When standard practice has been followed then this is shown as strong evidence of breach of duty * Raise standard if defendant is an expert – when the defendant is an expert of a profession then the standard of care is raised to the reasonable person of that profession. The skill is compared with the average person in that profession not the best or worst.
* Lower standard if defendant is a child – when the defendant is a child then we lower the standard of care then that of a reasonable adult. Consequences are greater for one individual – where the consequences of harm to a particular person are greater than other people, a higher standar of care needs to be applied to that person. 12. Re Herald of free Enterprise shows what standard of care factor? * Practicality of taking precautions – The defendant is only expected to do what is reasonable to prevent harm. The courts consider the balance of risk involved against cost and practicality of preventing the risk. * Standard Practice – When standard practice has been followed then this is shown as strong evidence of breach of duty.
Raise standard if defendant is an expert – when the defendant is an expert of a profession then the standard of care is raised to the reasonable person of that profession. The skill is compared with the average person in that profession not the best or worst. * Lower standard if defendant is a child – when the defendant is a child then we lower the standard of care then that of a reasonable adult.
* Consequences are greater for one individual – where the consequences of harm to a particular person are greater than other people, a higher standar of care needs to be applied to that person. 3. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management shows what standard of care factor? * Practicality of taking precautions – The defendant is only expected to do what is reasonable to prevent harm.
The courts consider the balance of risk involved against cost and practicality of preventing the risk. * Standard Practice – When standard practice has been followed then this is shown as strong evidence of breach of duty * Raise standard if defendant is an expert – when the defendant is an expert of a profession then the standard of care is raised to the reasonable person of that profession.The skill is compared with the average person in that profession not the best or worst. * Lower standard if defendant is a child – when the defendant is a child then we lower the standard of care then that of a reasonable adult. * Consequences are greater for one individual – where the consequences of harm to a particular person are greater than other people, a higher standar of care needs to be applied to that person. 14.
Mullin v Richards shows what standard of care factor? * Practicality of taking precautions – The defendant is only expected to do what is reasonable to prevent harm.The courts consider the balance of risk involved against cost and practicality of preventing the risk. * Standard Practice – When standard practice has been followed then this is shown as strong evidence of breach of duty * Raise standard if defendant is an expert – when the defendant is an expert of a profession then the standard of care is raised to the reasonable person of that profession. The skill is compared with the average person in that profession not the best or worst. * Lower standard if defendant is a child – when the defendant is a child then we lower the standard of care then that of a reasonable adult.
Consequences are greater for one individual – where the consequences of harm to a particular person are greater than other people, a higher standar of care needs to be applied to that person. 15. Res ipsa loquitar means things ‘…..
…… ‘ * all things bright and beautiful * speak out loud * speak words * speak for themselves * speak for others 16.
If the rule ‘res ipsa loquitar’ applies then it can shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove… * on the balance of probabilities * that they were not negligent 17.
The claimant has to prove two things to shift the burden of proof onto the defence; they are: * 1. The defendant was in control of the situation which caused the claimant’s injury and 2. the injury was more likely then not to be caused by negligence.
* 1. The defendant wasn’t in control of the situation which caused the claimant’s injury and 2. the injury was more likely then not to be caused by negligence * 1. The defendant wasn’t in control of the situation which caused the claimant’s injury and 2.
the injury was more likely then not to be caused by mistake. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form
No Comments