Law Duty of Care

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 224
  • Published : November 1, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
The duty of care has been breached
Law 02 the second sttage of negligence
You have not started this quiz yet. You have 17 questions to answer. -------------------------------------------------
Top of Form
1. Breah of duty is the second stage of negligence. We can prove if there was a breach of duty by using the '............' test * reasonable person
* reasonable man
* degree of risk
* standard of care
2. In this test there is an '............................' where the defendant's characteristics aren't usually taken into account as demonstrated in the case Nettleship v Weston. * Reasonable man

* Reasonability standard
* Operating standard
* Objective standard
3. The Reasonable man test can be helped distinguished by establishing ... * 'degree of risk' and 'standard of care' factors.
* Reasonable characteristics.
* Objective standard of care.
4. Degree of risk factors are always used in the reasonable man test as the risk.... * because they are super cool
* as they are key to the test
* will amount to at least to one of them
* will tell us what is reasonable.
5. There are five 'degree of risk' factors.The case of [Roe V Minister of Health] shows an * Unknown Risk- for a breach of duty it is important the risk is forseeable however if the risk of harm or damage is not known then there is no breach of duty. * Small Risk - when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. * Small Risk but potential harm great - when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a reasonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed. * Known Risk - when the risk is known and no steps are taken to guard against it then there is likely to be a breach of duty as a reasonable person would be expected to guard against it. * Justifiable Risk - it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it. Such as balancing the benefits to society with the level of risk. 6. The case of [Bolton v Stone] shows a

* substantially increase the risk or harm or damages; or create a new risk. * Small Risk - when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. * Small Risk but potential harm great - when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a reasonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed. * Justifiable Risk - it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it. Such as balancing the benefits to society with the level of risk. * Known Risk - when the risk is known and no steps are taken to guard against it then there is likely to be a breach of duty as a reasonable person would be expected to guard against it. 7. The case of [Paris v Stepney Borough Council] shows a

* substantially increase the risk or harm or damages; or create a new risk. * Small Risk - when there is a small risk then it is unlikely that there is a breach of the duty of care as a reasonable person is not usually expected to go to great lengths to guard against the small risk. * Small Risk but potential harm great - when there is a small risk but the potential harm is great then it is expected a reasonable person to take stpes to guard against it though not substantial steps are needed. * Justifiable Risk - it can be acceptable to run or take a risk if the purpose of the activity under consideration justifies it. Such as balancing the benefits to society...
tracking img