Negligence: ‘Standard of Care'/ Breach Negligence: The breach of a legal duty to take care by an inadvertent act or omission that injures another (Physical, economic, property injuries) What is negligence? · Focus in negligence is not on a particular right or interest . Focus is on the 'quality of the Defendant's conduct' Components of the tort of negligence 1. A duty is owed by the tortfeasor (Usually the D), to the claimant 2. The duty is breached: conduct falls below the required standard of care 3. The breach of duty causes damage 4. That damage is not to remote from the breach After applying the criteria If the above criteria are satisfied, it will also be important to ask these further questions: 1. Are there any valid defences to the action? 2. Is the action out of time (generally, under Limitation Act 198ft)? 3. Collectability- Is the defendant able to meet the judgment, if a monetary remedy is sought? I.e., is it worth it? (solvency; insurance) (Is there any other parties also concerned in this tort of negligence) Standard of Care Standard of Care: It defines what conduct will count in law as negligence or lack of care, and in this sense, it defines the 'content' of the tort . Someone may fall below the reasonable standard of care What is the basic standard? Reasonable person test is usually seen as an objective test (Usually means the average person) · Has the D met the reasonable standard of an average person? · Usually hard to prove · Could also be subject The relevant standard is that of the reasonable person. So in general, we will judge the defendant by the standards of the reasonable person who is undertaking the task or activity in the course of which the negligence is said to arise. Nettleship v Weston 1971: Learner driver held to standard of ordinary experienced driver . Question asked was did the learner driver owe a duty of care . She was held guilty as it was seen to be that she should owe the same standard of care as a professional driver However, it is subject to some variations ... Though objective, the standard may vary with circumstances; and with the broad nature of the person or task
Variations to the Objective standard: Capacity Roberts v Ramsbottom 198ft: Motorist involved in an accident when unknowingly he was suffering from a stroke . Neill LJ - 'The driver will escape liability if his actions at the relevant time were wholly beyond his control' . Here, 'the defendant continued to drive when he was unfit to do so and when he should have been aware of his unfitness.' In Contrast ... Mansfield v Weetabix 1997: driver with unknown medical condition exonerated. · Lorry driver went into a hypoglycemic state and crashed into the plaintiff's shop. Held- No reason why a driver who was involved in an accident caused by a disabling event should not escape liability where the disabling event