LLB102 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Breach (Security Exploit), Objective Test, Endangerment
WEEK$7!LECTURE:(BREACH'OF'DUTY'OF'CARE!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Breach!=!the!“fault”!part!of!the!negligence!action!!
- An!act!or!omission!of!the!defendant!!
- A!failure!to!act!as!a!reasonable!person!would!in!the!same!or!similar!circumstances!
o When!we!say!that!someone!has!breached!something,!we!are!alleging!that!there!was!an!
act!or!omission!that!was!not!reasonable!on!the!circumstances!!
!
Breach!of!the!Duty!of!Care!
!
Determining!whether!the!defendant!has!breached!their!of!duty!of!care,!!
!
Two!stage!process:!
i. What!is!the!relevant!standard!of!care?!
• Owed!by!the!defendant!to!the!plaintiff!
ii. Has!that!standard!been!breached?!
• In!the!circumstances!
- Onus!of!proof!–!Plaintiff!on!balance!of!probabilities!
o Action!on!the!case!so!plaintiff!bears!the!onus!of!proof,!and!it!is!a!civil!action!so!its!on!the!
balance!of!probabilities!
!
Standard!of!Care!
!
- What!is!the!standard!of!care?!
o It!is!the!standard!of!behaviour!expected!by!the!defendant!because!they!owe!a!duty!of!
care!
o A!legal!standardàwhat!the!law!says!should!be!achieved!In!order!to!fulfil!a!duty!of!care!
- Question!of!law!-!fictitious!person:!the!reasonable!person!
o It!is!an!Objective!test!because!it!involves!this!fictitious!person!
o ‘Standard!of!foresight!of!the!reasonable!man’!
§ Glasgow(Corporation(v(Muir!
§ Eliminates!the! personal! equation;!the! personal! characteristics!of!the! defendant!
should!not!play!any!role!in!determining!the!standard!they!owe.!!
• “What!would!a!reasonable(person(do?”!rather!than!“what!would!Fred!do?”!
§ What!would!a!reasonable!conduct?! Whatever! a!reasonable! person! would! do!in!
similar!circumstances!!
!
o ‘objective!and!impersonal’!!
§ *Imbree(v(McNeilli!
• “As! a! general! rule,! the! standard! of! care! owed! to! someone! who! might!
foreseeably!be!injured!by!lack!of!care!is!objective!and!impersonal!and!is!
not!modified!by!the!personal!attributes!of!the!defendant.“!
Examples!
!
A!Standard!of!Care!of!a!Driver!of!a!Motor!Vehicle?!
!
If!a!plaintiff!is!injured!as!a! passenger!of! a! vehicle! (the!defendant!was!driving),!the!standard!of!care!
imposed!on!that!driver!would!be!of!a!reasonable,!prudent,!competent!driver!
- Objective!standard!=!Reasonable!and!competent!driver!
!
A!Standard!of!care!of!a!Docotor?!
!
If!a!plaintiff!in!injured!by!an!incorrect!diagnosis,!the!standard!imposed!on!the!doctor!would!be!that!of!
a!reasonable,!competent!doctor!!
- Objective!standard!=!Reasonable!and!competent!doctor!
!
!
A!Standard!of!care!of!a!solicitor?!
!
If!a!solicitor!is!negligent!in!giving!a!service!to!a!client,!the!standard!of!care!to!be!expected!is!that!of!a!
reasonable!and!competent!solicitor!!
- Objective!standard!=!Reasonable!and!competent!solicitor!
!
**!When!answering!a!question!on!negligence,!the!issue:!has!the!defendant!breached!the!duty?!The!first!
sub!issue:!What!is!the!relevant!standard!of! care?!You!always!state!as!it!is!a!question!of!law,!it!is!an!
objective!test!(cite!Imbree(v(MeNeilli),!then!you!apply!it!to!the!facts!and!state!what!the!standard!is**!
!
Characteristics!of!the!Defendant!!
!
Sometimes! there! are! characteristics! of! the! defendant! that! may! be! taken! into! account! and! alter! the!
standard!of!care:!
!
Children!ü!
- If!the!defendant!is!a!child,!you!would!not!expect!the!same!standard!of!behaviour!from!child!as!
you!would!of!an!adult!
- Lower!standard!according!to!child's!age!and!experience!
o *McHale(v(Watson!
o cf(Tucker(v(Tucker!
- A!child!defendant!will!be!assessed!against!the!standard!of!a!child!of!similar!age!and!experience!
!
In!*McHale(v(Watson,!
!
12-year-old!defendant! who! threw! a! dart! and! it! hit! the! plaintiff’s! eye,! the! plaintiff! sued! in!
negligence!and!also!trespass.!In!terms!of!negligence,!she!alleged!that!the!defendant!had!failed!to!take!
reasonable!care!in!throwing!the!dart.!The!court!noted!that!standard!of!care!was!an!objective!standard!
that!applied!to!a!child!defendant;!however,!the!fact!that!the!defendant!was!a!child!was!a!characteristic!
of!his!humanity!and!his!stage!of!development!and!in!that!sense,!normal.!Normality!of!children!is!quite!
different!to! normality! of!adults.! So! it!was! held! that,! child! defendant!will! be! assessed!according!to!a!
reasonable!child!of!similar!age!and!experience.!It!is!not!so!much!personal!characteristics!of!a!child!e.g.!
that!they’re!a!child!and!have!tantrums!a!lot,!but!more!to!do!with!age!and!experience.!!
Disability!û!
- Mental!disability! is! not! relevant! hen! assessing! the! standard! of! carebeucase! according! to! the!
law,!a!reasonable!person!is!never!insane!!
o Carrier(v(Bonham!
§ “If! the! mental! illness! has! deprived!the! person! of! capacity,! then! the! person! has!
also!been!deprived!of!rationality!and!reasonableness.!The!standard!of!care!must!
be!the!objective!standard!expected!of!an!ordinary!person.!!
- Physical!disability!depends!of!the!circumstances!
o What!was!the!disability?!What!activity!was!he!defendant!engaged!in!at!the!time?!
o If!the!defendant!did!everything!they!could!have!done!having!regard!to!their!disability,!
but! their! disability! increased! the! risk! of! harm,! then! they! still! may! be! found! to! be!
negligent!
!
In!Roberts(v(Ramsbottom,!
(
Defendant!had!a!stoke!20!minutes!before!entering!the!car!and!was!not!aware!of!his!symptoms!
when!driving.!The!court!held!that!he!was!still!liable!for!his!actions!as!he!would!have!been!aware!of!his!
symptoms!after!the!first!accident,!but! he! continued! to! drive!and!have!more!accidents.!His!impaired!
judgement!was!held!to!be!no!defence.!A!reasonable!person!suffering!such!symptoms!would!not!have!
driven!the!car!at!all.!!
!
àMental!and!physical!disability!of!the!defendant!does!not!affect!the!standard!of!care!they!owe!
!
!
KNOWLEDGE!&!!SKILLü!
!
- Raise!standard!to!take!into!account!special!knowledge!and!skill!
o e.g.!doctor,!specialist!(e.g.!dermo!this!specialisation!increases!the!standard!compared!to!
for!example!a!GP),!trained!persons!
§ *Rogers(v(Whitaker(!
- Persons!who! are! educated! or! trained! in! a! particular! field! are! going! to! be! judged! against! the!
standard!of!a!reasonable!person!who!possess!that!particular!knowledge!or!skill!
- If!defendant!holds!themselves!out!to!possess!the!skill,!this!raises!the!standard!
o They!cant!project!themselves!to!possess!a!certain!skill!and!then!say!“I!should!be!treated!
as! a! reasonable! person”! they! would! be! assessed! by! the! standard! of! the! skill! in! which!
they!are!claiming!they!have!!
!
LACK!OF!KNOWLEDGE!OR!SKILL!û!
- Lack!of!knowledge!or!ignorance!of!the!part!of!the!defendant!towards!the!fact!or!situation!will!
not! be!taken! into! account!if! a! reasonable! person! would! have! been! aware! of! that!fact! or! the!
situation!à!Does!NOT!lower!the!standard!of!care!
o “I!didn’t!know!that,!so!you!should!assess!me!as!a!reasonable! person!who!didn’t!know!
this”!û!If!a!reasonable!person!would!have!known!it,!that!it!what!the!defendant!would!be!
judged!against.!!
- If!a!reasonable!person!would!possess!the!knowledge!or!skill,!the!lack!on!part!of!the!particular!
defendant!is!not!taken!into!account!(and!vice!versa)!
o Dovuro(Pty(Ltd(v(Wilkins!
§ If!you!do!a!task!that!usually!would!be!carried!out!by!someone!with!a!special!skill,!
as!long!as!you!are!not!claiming!to!have!that!skill,!you’ll!be!judged!as!a!reasonable!
person.!!
- Note:!you!judge!knowledge!as!at!the!time!of!the!alleged!negligence!!
o Roe(v(Minister(of(Health!
!
