Breach of Duty of Care in Negligence Law

The breach element establishes fault on the defendant's part. It occurs when the claimant is able to prove that the defendant's actions lacked the required standard of care.

Following the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co., negligence is defined as the failure to do what a reasonable person would do, or doing what a reasonable person would not do.

The application of the reasonable standard of care is exemplified in Glasgow Corporation v Muir. This case established the 'standard of the reasonable person'.

The principle of likelihood of harm is illustrated by Bolton v Stone. In this case, the claimant was injured when a cricket ball from the defendant's cricket ground struck her. This was a rare occurrence, happening only six times in 28 years, and no previous injury had occurred. Although the injury was foreseeable, the low likelihood of it occurring meant the defendant did not fall below the standard of care.

The practicality of taking precautions is a key consideration, as seen in Latimer v AEC Ltd. After a flood, the floor of a factory was covered with oil. The defendant used sawdust to absorb the oil and prevent employees from slipping. However, there was not enough sawdust, and some areas remained uncovered, leading to the claimant's fall. The court held that it was impractical to expect the defendant to shut down the entire factory, thus they had not breached their duty.

When a defendant is exercising a special skill, the professional standard of care applies. The Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee case established that a professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals skilled in that particular art. A person need not possess the highest expert skill to avoid being found negligent.

The Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority case refined the Bolam test. A two-year-old baby died due to a respiratory attack in the defendant's hospital. The mother brought an action against the doctor for failing to attend to her son for intubation. The House of Lords held that while the doctors were in breach for failing to attend her son, the Bolam test required further scrutiny. As per Lord Browne-Wilkinson, the court is not bound to accept a body of opinion if it is not 'responsible, reasonable, or respectable'. This means the court can scrutinize the professional opinion.

The standard of care for all drivers on the road, including learners, was addressed in Nettleship v Weston. Lord Denning famously posed the question, 'On whom should the risk fall?' He concluded that even though the learner driver might be without moral fault, she was legally liable because she was insured, establishing an objective standard for drivers.

For children, the standard of care is adapted to what a reasonable child of that age would foresee. In Mullin v Richards, a 15-year-old girl would not have foreseen the injury that occurred during a play fight with rulers, and therefore, no breach of duty was found on her part.