![]() Essentially, the reasonable man should not be considered as acting perfectly, merely, averagely. ![]() In identifying the ‘reasonable man’, some guidance was provided, describing him, at points, as ‘the man in the street’ or ‘the man on the Clapham Omnibus’. The defendant was participating in a motor race when he lost control of his vehicle, killing and injuring spectators. Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club 1 KB 205 provides further guidance as to the standard of behaviour expected of a ‘reasonably competent person’. The most important general principle regarding breach is therefore that the applicable standard of care is that of a reasonably competent person undertaking that activity. In essence, this means that a defendant cannot rely on their own lack of skill or knowledge as a defence. So, the standard of care expected of, for example, an amateur archer, is the same as the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent archer. Thus, the courts do not recognise a tiered system of competency, at least as far as those learning a new skill are concerned. The second argument failed on the grounds that the claimant did not waive his rights - he demonstrated this when he checked the driver’s insurance. The courts held that some who undertakes a task should be judged against the standard of a reasonably qualified, competent person undertaking that task. Firstly, that as a learner driver, she should be judged against a lower standard of care (and therefore, that her actions did not breach the standard of care expected of a learner driver.) Secondly, that because the claimant agreed to get into the car with a learner driver, a defence of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary acceptance of risk) applied.īoth of these arguments failed. She panicked, and before the claimant could grab the wheel, the car crashed into a lamppost, fracturing the claimant’s knee. After turning a bend, the claimant told the defendant to straighten the wheel. Before agreeing to teach her, the claimant checked to see if the defendant’s insurance covered passengers. ![]() The defendant was a learner driver, taking lessons a friend - the claimant. Consider the leading case of Nettleship v Watson.Ĭase in Focus: Nettleship v Watson 3 WLR 370 The general rule is that defendants are expected to act with a reasonable level of skill in the activity they are undertaking. Although this seemingly suggests that defendants are always judged against objective standards, there does exist some scope to alter the test, depending on the characteristics of the defendant. If a defendant has acted reasonably, then they will not have breached the duty of care, and vice versa. As such, Donoghue v Stevenson (and subsequent cases) have held defendants to the standard of the reasonable man. Instead, the law strikes a balance between providing compensation where a failure has been particularly egregious, and where a genuine accident has occurred. Whilst there is certainly a duty of care between drivers and other road users, this duty does not mandate that every driver must drive perfectly. The existence of a duty of care does not mandate perfect behaviour. So, before dealing with any case, it is first worth asking ‘are the defendant’s injuries caused by a fantastic possibility, or a reasonable probability?’ If the answer to this question is the former, then the courts are unlikely to rule that the duty of care was breached.Īscertaining the Standard of Care for Different Defendants In contrast, the defendant was only obliged to avoid ‘reasonable probabilities’. The courts ruled the outcome was a ‘fantastic possibility’, and therefore not foreseeable. It started jumping around and barking, and in the process of doing so smashed a window, resulting in glass entering the claimant’s eye. See Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington All ER Rep 81 - the defendant’s dog, which was usually docile, was left in the defendant’s car. This means that cases which involve highly unlikely outcomes are not likely to be successful. This means that the courts will not ask the defendant whether they foresaw a certain outcome or not, but rather they will seek to work out what the defendant ought to have foreseen. Once that has been done, it is also necessary to examine the actions of the defendant to see whether they have fallen short of this standard.īefore continuing, it should be noted that the standard of care will always be based on reasonable foreseeability. The key thing to ascertain here is therefore the standard expected of the defendant. Once a duty of care has been found, it is then necessary to ask whether the defendant has acted in such a way as to have breached that duty of care. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |