• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Legal Obligations

Extracts from this document...


Resit Coursework. Obligations II. Having established that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care (and in this case it is assumed that this has been established), it will next be necessary for the courts to decide whether the defendant has breached that duty. This first involves an assessment by the court of how, in the circumstances, the defendant ought to have behaved; what standard of care should he have exercised. This standard is that of the ordinary and reasonable citizen and not that of the defendant himself: an especially careful defendant will not be held liable because he fell short of his own high standards, however, a defendant whose personal conception of what is reasonable fails to match that of the court will have no defence based on his belief that he acted carefully. Although the concept of the reasonable man is well developed and accepted in tort law it is nevertheless a general and sweeping statement. Sir Alan Herbert said: 'the reasonable man is .. devoid of any human weakness, with not one single saving vice' Although this is not quite true, it is difficult for the courts to create a reasonable, fictional man and I believe it important for them to take into account social and moral change when comparing the defendant to this fiction. In practice 'reasonable care' can be manipulated to produce standards ranging from the very low to the very high. What is reasonable conduct will always depend on the circumstances of the case and it is a mistake to rely on previous cases when deciding this standard. The standard of care expected of the reasonable man is objective. ...read more.


The court did not say however, that the defendant could not play cricket on the ground again. It could be said that if it is reasonable to play cricket at all it can hardly be unreasonable conduct for a batsman to attempt to hit the ball for six, which is one of the objects of the game. In this case it seems that the courts have found the defendant liable, but have not put a stop to the cause of the liable action. The severity of the damage is also taken into account by the courts. The more serious the potential damage, the greater the precautions that should be taken, as seen in Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367. Another factor considered by the courts is the defendant's purpose. The social utility of the defendant's activity may justify taking greater risks than would otherwise be the case. This does not mean though, that the purpose of saving life and limb justifies taking any risk as seen in Giffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance [1998] PIQR P34, where the plaintiff motorist crossing a junction on a green light collided with an ambulance crossing against a red light, but was held 60% contributorily negligent. Some risks are unavoidable. Others can only be reduced at great expense. The question that has to be addressed by the courts is at what point does the cost of precautions enable the man not to take them. In Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 the defendants covered a wet factory with flaw with sawdust to prevent their employers slipping. However the plaintiff did slip and injure himself. ...read more.


In Maynard v Regional Health Authority [1984] 1 WLR 634 Lord Scarman said that 'a doctor who professes to exercise a special skill must exercise the ordinary skill of his speciality. However, in Matrix-Securities Ltd v Theodore Goddard (1997) 147 NLJ 1847 a lawyer advising in tax matters must exercise the standard of care appropriate to that sector of the profession specialising in tax matters. The ides of special standards does not simply apply to the medical profession. If it is accepted that a referee can potentially owe a duty of care to the participants in the sport that is being refereed (as seen in Smoldon v Whitworth [1997] PIQR P133 where it was held that a referee of a colts rugby match owed a duty of care to a player injured due to a collapsed scrum), then the standard of care will, presumably, be that of a reasonably competent referee in the circumstances. Nonetheless, in practice referees may face some difficult judgements about when precisely to intervene. As with all areas of law the courts face difficult decisions when dealing with all forms of breach of duty. The effect of the objective standard rule is, in some cases, to dilute the idea of individual responsibility, especially where decisions of policy are evident in a case. However, to apply a different, variable standard to each individual would be almost impossible. It is clear that a special standard is needed when dealing with professionals but in certain cases it is clear that the true reason behind a finding in favour of the medical professional is not due to his lack of negligence, but to that of policy, an idea which is to be found (sometimes unfairly) in many decisions concerned with breach of duty. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Homicide Act 1957

    3 star(s)

    This is referred to as a "slow burn" and goes against the test laid out in R v. Duffy. Women suffering from this sort of provocation are said to have suffered "Battered woman's syndrome". This was seen in the case of R v Humphreys (1995)

  2. Examine the arguments for and against strict liability illustrating your answer with example of ...

    However there maybe some reforms as serious crimes have edged away from strict liability as strict liability issues in sexual offences cases may be changed after the cases of B (a minor) v DPP (2000) and K 2000 in which the House of Lords decided that mens rea was required.

  1. Fault as a concept in whichever area of law is a way of describing ...

    It is needed to note that in criminal law, the D remains "innocent until proven guilty" and in order to prove his fault, the prosecutors must do it 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. Thus, it can be seen that fault is extremely important in this area.

  2. Discuss the meaning of fault on the basis for criminal liability. Explain and evaluate ...

    However, on the contrary, it has been argued that strict liability punishments don't actually consist of minor punishments - some have even led to imprisonment. For example, in R V Howells, the D thought the gun he bought was an antique so he thought he didn't need a license for it.


    This required all the surrounding circumstances to be considered, for example the seriousness of the danger, the type of trespasser likely to enter, and in some cases the resources of the occupier. To establish whether Ken can be exempt from liability to compensate Malcolm, these factors will contribute to the

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    The law of torts will hold manufacturers strictly liable for any injuries that result from placing unreasonably dangerous products into the stream of commerce, without regard to the amount of care exercised in preparing the product for sale and distribution and without regard to whether the consumer purchased the product from, or entered into a contractual relationship with, the manufacturer.

  1. Tort law assignment. Brian fell against the standard of care a reasonable man would ...

    In Chaudry V Prabhaker 1988 it showed that a purely social relationship can give rise to a duty of care, when carefully considered advice was being sought from a party with some expertise. Brian share a social relationship with John as they are friends, but this gave rise to Brian?s duty of care.

  2. Introduction to Torts

    his boss chose to go with him to get a ?decent meal?, was not a gesture of running a ?special errand? or ?special mission? for his employer, but an act on just going to lunch with him. Rule As in the case of Jeewarat v.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work