Page 87 - PRINCIPLE OF LAW- FINAL (eISBN) pdf

Politeknik Kota Bharu

(ii) Breach of duty

✓ the claimant established that he or she was owed

a duty of care by the defendant and that there has been

a breach of that duty (defendant doing the duty below

the minimum standard of care required).

✓ Measured through the standard of ‘reasonable man’

test, but have a specific rule if the defendants are:

▪ Child (Mullin v Richard-15yrs old schoolgirl and

plastic ruler).

▪ Learner (Nettleship v Weston – learner driver).

▪ Incapacity or infirmity( Robert v Ramsbottom-

stroke driver).

▪ Professional (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

Committee- broken pelvis during ECT).

✓ Proof of breach: plaintiff must produce evidence for

lack of reasonable care or (if no evidence exists) raised

by using maxim res ipsa loguitur (the thing speaks for

itself).

✓ 4 factors to be consider by courts if there has been a

breach of duty:

i. The degree of risk involved.

ii. The practicality of taking precautions.

iii. The seriousness of harm.

iv. The social importance of the risk activities.

75