#        Introduction to Legal Studies 4PRO403         19/11/09

#INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL STUDIES 4PRO403 coursework Part A

The legal expression of ‘the man on the Clapham Omnibus’ was first introduced in 1753 in the case of R v Murphy  by Philip Dunwell, in relation to a Northcote Road Chandler, Reginald Toff. Toff was due to give testimony implementing the case, however he failed to attend at the allocated time, as a result the court sent earnest law clerks to Chancery Lane. As a Clapham omnibus passed by, Dunwell shouted "That's our man, the man on the Clapham omnibus!"(1). The term was later coined by Bowen L.J to refer to ‘the reasonable/ ordinary man’ on the street whilst concluding the case of McQuire v Western Morning News [1903] 2KB 100 and confronting the jury with the question “We must ask ourselves what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think.” (2). This was then later used to asses by common law the standard of care of that of the average man.   This  was acknowledged by Greer LJ in Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1933) 1 KB 205 when discussing the case Greer LJ stated “it must be judged by what any reasonable member of the public must have intended should be the term of the contract”(3).  The plaintiff had a duty to see the course was as safe as  “reasonable care and skill could make it “(4) however there was an appeal from McCardie J, which was then allowed as it was seen that no reasonable person can guard from every possible danger.

The man on the Clapham Omnibus cannot be compared to a professional person as he does not uphold any professional knowledge or skills, the term professional can connote anyone who gives specialist advice or service. This can range from a solicitor to an IT consultant. Therefore, unlike the man on the Clapham omnibus a professional is under a legal duty to exercise “services with reasonable care and skill” (5).  However a person is only required to show the skill of a person in the same field.  In Wells v Cooper [1958] the claimant was injured by the defendants door handle whilst making a delivery. The handle was fixed on by the defendant a few months earlier. The defendant had some experience as an amateur carpenter. Jenkins LJ stated that “it was a trifling domestic replacement well within the competence of accustomed to doing small carpentering jobs”(6)  and therefore his skills would not be comparable with one of a professional carpenter and held that the defendant was not liable for breach of duty.  In majority of cases the professionals would have signed a contract with the claimant to provide the professional knowledge or skill they promote and within those contractual terms there has to be a breach or liability.

Join now!

 For that liability to be established the claimant must be able to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care and that the duty was breached causing a loss which would have been reasonably foreseeable or the standard of care that expected of him fell below that of the professional in the same field. This is known as the "Bolam test". The Bolem Test applies to all professionals and measures whether one has provided his standard of care whilst treating a client/patient. This standard of care was laid down in the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] ...

This is a preview of the whole essay