- In order to determine whether someone has breached a duty of care, the standard of care must be considered
- The standard of care is that of the reasonable person
- A person is not required to show a standard of care greater than that of the reasonable person
- A person will be liable if they have shown a standard of care less than that of the reasonable person
Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of The Birmingham Waterworks [1856]: The Standard of Care
- The standard of care was defined in this case
- Facts: There had been cold frosts, causing a water main to freeze and expand, pushing a fire plug out. Water had escaped and damaged a property. The owner sued for negligence on the basis that the defendant had not kept their water-pipe and fireplug in proper order
- The High Court held that there had been no negligence. Alderson, B stated:
- "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done...The result was an accident, for which the defendants cannot be held liable"
- A common mistake is to think that the tort of negligence only began in 1932 with Donoghue v Stevenson
- Negligence was well-known to English law before 1932. However, it was much more limited in scope and 'duty of care' had not yet been extended to the 'neighbour' principle stated by Lord Atkin
- The 'reasonable man' test is sometimes referred to as the 'reasonable person' test
- It is regarded as an objective test
- The judge or jury will determine whether a person has acted negligently by comparing his or her act or omission with the behaviour of the reasonable man
No comments:
Post a Comment