Duty Breach and Causation

1. Negligence

2. IntroductiontoNegligence
Negligence is an area of law that exists within the civil sanctions of our legal system. If you successfully
show that someone has been negligent toward you there is a possibility that you will be awarded
compensation or some other damages. This is possible as long as the rules of negligence are followed, and
the case is proved on the balance of probabilities.

3. TestYourMemory…
Key word (CIVIL) Meaning Key Word (Criminal) Meaning
Civil Law Criminal Law
Compensation Sentence
Balance of Probability Beyond reasonable Doubt
Liable Guilty

4. Answers
Key word (CIVIL) Meaning Key Word (Criminal) Meaning
Civil Law Actions
Individual vs Individual
Criminal Law Actions
State vs Individual
Compensation Usually financial Sentence Prison. Community, Fines or Discharge
Balance of Probability More than likely the claims against individual
are true
Beyond reasonable Doubt Virtually certain that the claims against
individual are true
Liable The claims were true Guilty The claims were true

5. 3stepstoclaiming…
Duty of
Care
Breach of
Duty
Causation

6. STEP1,DutyofCare
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) which states…
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…would do or doing something that
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” Baron Alderman
What do you think this mean?

7. Reasonable
man?
Who is the “Reasonable Man”?
How are we meant to know how
this fictional character would
act?
What do you think are the problems with the reasonable man? Does he/she
really exist?

8. Reasonableman?
According to Cambridge University Press…
“The reasonable person standard incorporates the typical individual's ability to make long-term plans that
might affect the risks he imposes on others and to make trade offs that affect those risks”
Basically meaning that the reasonable person is someone who doesn’t take un-necessary risks with the
safety of others. The reasonable person is judged objectively.

9. DonoghuevStevenson(1932)
This case led Lord Atkin to make a famous speech which spoke about a
biblical idea known as “Love thy Neighbour”. This meant that even
though Mrs D had no contract with the seller, or any direct dealing
with the manufacturer, she was still owed a duty of care.
This allowed Mrs D to claim against the manufacturer despite having
never met them. This was justified by the fact that there is a
relationship (no matter how remote) between them. And under this
“neighbour Principle” it is possible to be liable even though there is no
contract.
This is pretty wide as far as definitions go. Technically we are all
neighbours in some way shape or form therefor our negligent actions
can be raised by the injured.

10. Theproblemofneighbours…
Donoghue gave us a really wide concept that opened the floodgates to the courts. This meant pretty much
everyone could sue for even the most minor issues because we are all naighbours and we must all protect
one another.
This wideness was addressed in the case of;
Caparo v Dickman (1990).

11. Caparoand
the3parttest
ofduty.

12. FirstPartoftheTest-Foreseeability
This principle can be seen in the case of Kent v Griffiths (2000) where it was decided that an ambulance
driver owes a duty of care to the person that he/she has been called to. It’s foreseeable that if the driver
delays un-necessarily then the victim (who may already be injured) will be injured further if the driver
arrives too late or not at all.

13. SecondPartof
theTest-
Proximity
Looking at the case of Bourhill and the case of
Mcloughlin. Why were they decided differently?

14. ThirdPartofthe
test-
reasonableness
The case of Hill v Chief Constable of
West Yorkshire (1988) illustrates that
police could not be sued for not
catching the criminal that killed the
claimants daughter. It wasn’t fair just or
reasonable to impose such a duty.
However, times are changing.

15. Testyour
Memory…
Name the case that gave us
our early definition of
negligence. what does that
definition tell us about
negligence?

16. answer
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) which states…
“Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…would do or doing something that which a
prudent and reasonable man would not do.” Baron Alderman
Basically doing something you shouldn’t do but also can be not doing something you should have done.

17. Assessment
onduty
There is an assessment in your booklet that
must be completed to continue with negligence
and learn about the next step. Breach of duty

18. Breach of Duty

19. Stagetwo,Breach
The second element to of looking for negligence is the concept of Breach of Duty. Once the claimant has
shown that a duty exists, they must now show the defendant breached that duty.
The basic principle is that the defendant has breached their duty where they have failed to reach the
reasonable standard expected of them to complete that task.
The defendant must reach the standard of a reasonably competent person doing the same thing. This is an
objective concept.

20. Couldyoureachthestandardrequired?
What standard is required, and could you reach that standard?
Fixing the fuse box at home?
Therefor should you try to fix your own fuse box at home?

21. REASONABLEpersontest
“takes a degree of care sensible given the risk involved”
Wells v Cooper (1954)
The d’ attempted to fix a door handle which came away under severe weather and injured the claimant.
The c’ wanted compensation. The court stated that the d HAD reached the standard of a reasonably
competent carpenter.
This meant that the court saw that the D was not a professional but had done the same as a competent
carpenter would have done.

22. Courtsdecideifdutyisbreachedby
lookingat;
Are there any special characteristics of the defendant?
Are there any special characteristics of the claimant?
What is the size of the risk?
Benefits of the risk? (Social Utility)
Have Precautions been taken?

23. Arethereanyspecialcharacteristicsofthe
defendant?
Defendants can be judged at a different standard depending on who they are. The following have different
levels of duty;
Professionals
Learners
Children

24. Professionals
The standard for professionals is that they are expected to reach the standard of a reasonably competent
professional in the same area of work.
Carpenters are judged by the standard of a reasonable carpenter for example.

25. Professionals
Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957)
The claimant was a patient at a mental health facility and opted for electric shock therapy. He wasn’t given a
a muscle relaxant and wasn’t strapped down well. He suffered injury.
The duty was not breached. The doctor has reached the standard required of a competent professional.

26. Professionals
What about where the risks are unknown to the professionals? A claim against professionals will fail.
Roe v Ministry of Health (1954)
A patient was paralysed from the use of anaesthetic that had been contaminated with cleaning fluid. The
anaesthetic was stored in glass containers at the time and it was believed that was safe, but the glass often had
microscopic cracks where contaminates would often go unnoticed.
Duty was not breached as medical science at the time believed that this was a safe method of storing drugs and
the problem from microscopic cracks was unforeseeable.

27. Learners
Learners will be judged by the standard of a reasonably competent professional. Sounds harsh but there
are good reasons for this.
This includes learner drivers.
See Nettleship v Weston (1971)

28. Learners
Justify the case of Nettleship.

29. Children
Children will be judged by comparing their actions to the actions of an ordinary young person the same age as the defendant.
Muller v Weston (1971)
The defendant (15) was playfighting with another with plastic rulers in class. The ruler snapped and a piece of plastic blinded the
victim.
Held that there was no breach of duty. When compared to ordinary 15 year olds, the defendant had acted in a way consistent for
that age.

30. Arethereanyspecialcharacteristicsof
theclaimant
The reasonable man should take more care when the situation demands it. This means if the claimant
needs more protection and the d’ fails to provide this, they have fallen short of the standards required and
should be liable.
Can you explain the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951)?

31. Whatisthesizeoftherisk?
Can you compare the cases of Bolton and Miller? Why were they decided differently?

32. HavePrecautionsbeentaken?
Latimer v AEC (1953)
Flooding in a factory meant that water and oil made the factory floor very unsafe. The company tried to
clean up the floors, used sand and saw dust and put up signs warning people. The claimant fell and
attempted to sue.
Held that the company had not breached their duty. They have a duty to try to make the place safe (which
they did) but they cannot make the place completely safe.

33. Causation

34. StagethreeCausation
General rule
For a successful claim to exist in law the claimant must show that the def owed them a duty of care, which
they breached. The third necessary element is the fact that the damage caused was due to the duty being
breached.
This idea is usually called damage (which should be distinguished from damages which is the award the injured
gets). Damage is divided into two categories;
Causation (the but for test)
Remoteness (damage must be reasonably foreseeable)
We will need to consider both.

35. Causation(Factual).TheButFortest
Looking at the Barnett case, why was the doctor not responsible for the death?
Think about the BUT FOR test and how it applies to the doctor in question.

36. thechainofcausation
Look at Novous Actus Interveniens and explain the principle. Try to use a case to support your arguments.

37. RemotenessofDamage,LegalCausation
The consequence must be foreseeable.
Wagon Mound Case (1961)
The defendant spilled some oil onto the water as he refuelled his ship at the dock. The oil spread to a nearby ship that was under
repair. There was welding taking place on this ship which causes sparks. The sparks ignited the oil on the water and caused
damage to the claimants dock.
The court held that there should be no claim against the defendant as the fire was unforeseeable. It was unreasonable to expect
that oil could catch fire on water. This was a very unexpected consequences. Basically too remote means not foreseeable and
therefore not actionable.

38. Thinkskullrule
Looking at the idea of the think skull rule, explain some justifications for this concept and use the case of
Smith v Leech Brain (1962) to explain the idea.

39. Testyour
memory…
What is the but for test and
which case demonstrates the
principle?

40. Answer
The BUT FOR test is a factual test of causation. The defendant is responsible for the consequence if “but for
his actions, the outcome wouldn’t have happened.”
The case that demonstrated this was Barnett where the security guard died after being poisoned.