Breach of duty3/18/2023 ![]() The fire officer, employed by the defendant, had ordered the use of an ordinary lorry to carry the equipment as the usual vehicle was engaged in other work at the time. The plaintiff, a fire fighter, was injured by heavy lifting equipment needed to assist at a serious road accident, which had slipped off the back of a vehicle. Watt v Hertfordshire County Council 1 WLR 835 Facts: If the defendant's activity has no social utility or is unlawful, the defendant will be required to exercise a very high degree of care to justify even a small risk of harm to others. The greater the social utility of the defendant's conduct, the less likely it is that the defendant will be held to be negligent. The defendant had not taken all practical precautions and therefore was in breach of the standard of care required. The House of Lords found that further precautions, for example erecting a fence around the hole would have significantly reduced the risk of injury at a low cost. Issue:Ĭould the defendant reasonably have taken more precautions? Held: The hammer was left to warn people that a hole had been dug in preparation for underground work, which was common practice at the time. The plaintiff, a blind man, was injured when he tripped over a hammer on a pavement, left by workmen employed by the defendant. A lack of resources is not usually accepted as defence for the defendant failing to exercise reasonable care. Essentially, the greater the risk of injury, the greater the requirement to take precautions. However, if the precautions would only produce a very limited reduction in the risk and cost a lot, then a defendant is more likely to have acted reasonably. The defendant is likely to have acted unreasonably if the risk would have been substantially reduced at a low cost and the defendant failed to take the necessary precautions. The courts will consider the cost and practicality of measures the defendant could have adopted in order to prevent the injury or damage. Therefore, the defendant should have taken extra care to provide goggles for the plaintiff. The House of Lords found that the probability of the injury occurring was very small, but its consequences were very serious. Issue:ĭid the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's existing disability increase the standard of care required? Held: The injury may have been prevented if the plaintiff had been provided with protective goggles to wear at work. Prior to the incident, the defendant knew that the plaintiff was already blind in one eye. The plaintiff had an accident in which he lost his sight in one eye, while working as a mechanic for the defendant, a local authority. Paris v Stepney Borough Council AC 367 Facts: Similarly, if the defendant is aware that a particular individual is at an enhanced risk of serious injury, this too increases the obligation to take care. The more serious the potential injury, the greater the standard of care required. The seriousness of possible injury or damage caused should also be taken into account by a reasonable person. The reasonable person should not ignore the risk to blind pedestrians, especially due to the gravity of the potential injury and the limited cost of more robust precautions. The House of Lords found that it was reasonably foreseeable that unaccompanied blind pedestrians may walk that route and therefore the defendant should have taken extra precautions. Issue:ĭid the magnitude of the risk mean the defendant had breached their duty of care? Held: The plaintiff a blind man, was injured when he tripped over a hammer on a pavement, left by workmen employed by the defendant. ![]() Indeed, it has been cited by leading common law courts such as the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Canada, the High Court of Australia, the High Court of Malaysia and the Supreme Court of Singapore.Haley v London Electricity Board AC 778 Facts: The Journal continues to interest lawyers, academics and observers in and outside the common law world. It features topics with theoretical or practical appeal or a mixture of both. Singapore, as an independent legal system founded on the English legal system, continues to draw guidance from the common law authorities of leading Commonwealth countries, including England, Australia and Canada, and sometimes, the USA.The Journal publishes articles on private and public international law as well as comparative law. The Journal covers both domestic and international legal developments. Submissions are subject to anonymous peer review by subject specialists within and beyond Singapore. The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 and is a faculty managed publication.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |