Vaughan v Menlove 1837
established the concept of the reasonable man, there is an objective standard
(hay bale stacked in barn told that it would catch on fire and it did)
Nettleship v Western 1971
establish that learners are judges at the standard of the competent more experienced person
(on third driving lesson and hit a lamp post which fell on the car and injured Nettleship)
Mullin v Richards 1998
establish that the standard is the reasonable person of the D’s age at the time of the accident
(15-year-olds, play fight with ruler, fragment in eye, lost sight)
Orchard v Lee 2009
application of Mullin v Richards 1998
(13-year-old boy ran backwards into dinner lady who fell and was injured)
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee 1957 (past case)
established that you are judged according to the standards operating in the profession
-Does the D’s conduct fall below the standard of the ordinary, competent member of that profession?
-Is there substantial body of opinion within the profession that would support the course of action taken by the D?
-‘NO’ then ‘Yes’ not broken duty of care (C suffer from mental illness + treatment of electric shock ECT caused them to suffer a broken pelvis, signed a consent form but not made aware of risk broken bones also not receive relaxant drug)
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Authority 2015 (present case)
establish that when a risk is involved the standard of care may be raised or lowered- the reasonable person may have taken more or fewer risks in the same situation
(C gave birth to a child with cerebral palsy due to complications but not told about the risks, Doctors failed to disclose the risks and obtain informed consent)
Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951
establish that special characteristic have to be considered
(C known to be blind in one eye, working with no safety goggles and lost sight in good eye so completely blind)
Bolton v Stone 1951
establish that the size of the risk* has to be considered- higher risks, greater precaution
(cricket ball hit C in street as passing cricket ground, 17 foot high fence, wicket away from fence, 30 years 6 balls hit out)
Hayley v London Electricity Board 1965
establish that the size of the risk* has to be considered- higher risk of injury, higher standard of care
(workers follow standard practice and dug out a trench for cables, left signage but no barrier, C blind fell in trench and was injured)
Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953
establish that adequate precautions* have to be considered- courts consider the balance of risk involved against the cost and effort of taking adequate precautions to eliminate the risk
(factory flood and slippery due to mix of oil and water, workers evacuated and sawdust put down on most used areas to minimise the risk of slipping, workers required to go back, one slipped and was injured)
Roe v Minister of Health 1954
establish that unknown risks* have to be considered- if the risk of harm is unknown then there can be no breach
(Anaesthetic in glass bottle, cleaning solution contaminate this due to invisible cracks (unknown), C was paralysed when injected with the solution)
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council 1954/ Day v High Performance Sports 2003
establish that policy* has to be considered- if there is an emergency then greater risks can be taken with a lower standard of care being accepted (3rd part DoC) courts take a realistic view of dealing with emergencies and accept that hindsight wouldn’t be taken into account
(C firefighter who was injured due to equipment vehicle not there so equipment slipped while the lorry was on the way to the accident)
(C an experienced climber was ‘frozen’ so duty manager went to rescue them but did it inappropriately so the C fell and suffered serious injuries)
