In every case, when considering breach, the courts must decide two things - a question of law and a question of fact. What are they?

What is the classic definition of standard of care? Give the authority.

What is the standard of care? Give an authority.

Does a negative consequence always involve a breach?

What standard is a learner driver held to?

What standard is a junior doctor held to? What is the authority for the idea that we look to the act, and not the actor, in order to establish the reasonble duty of care?

Authority for when there is a choice of standard - getting your ears pierced.

What if the activity doesn't require special skill, but can often be performed by a professional? E.g. DIY?

Give an example of temporary disability not impacting the courts decision about whether a breach had occurred.

Give an example of temporary disability impacting the courts decision about whether a breach had occurred.

Give an authority of the ongoing mental illness of the defendant not mitigating the finding of a breach.

Give an authority that shows what standard a child in a school fight will be held to. A reasonable man?

Give an authority that shows what standard a child in a playground accident will be held to. A reasonable man?

What if the child was particularly 'dim witted'? Give an authority.

Give an authority that shows what standard a footballer who casues an injury on a pitch will be held to. A reasonable man?

How do courts ascertain what would a reasonable man do in a professional context? Are there any issues with this methodology?

Give the primary authority for the principle that professionals are treated slighly differently to ordinary people.
How is the 'reasonable man' principle applied to professional stiutaions? You use this authority as the starting point for professionals, but a case such as Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing (1933) for the ordinary reasonable man test.

Rules for professionals

Give an authority that shows when the courts were willing to interfere with the professional norms of reasonable behaviour.

The first case where courts were willing to interfere in disputed medical standards of breach - to weigh evidence as to what the risks and benefits associated with different approaches are.

Having set the standard required of the defendant it is then necessary to see if the defendant has met that standard. In essence, this is a question of fact and degree, which requires the court to consider all the particular circumstances of the case (what happened and why?). What are the 5 general standards used to establish a breach? These apply in professional an non professional cases, but in professional cases, expert witnesses, and other evidence, are used to reach a finding.

How do we employ these standards to reach a decision?

Give an authority the shows courts finding harm unlikely, leading to the court not finding a breach.

Give an authority the shows courts finding harm unlikely, leading to the court not finding a breach.

Give an authority that contrast with Bolton v Stone, and shows when a sportsman should have taken more precautions to protect bystanders.

Give an authority which shows courts finding adequate precautions in place to protect a school teacher from harm, even thought she did in fact, get injured.

Give an authority where the the precaution of ensuring a contractor had insurance and safety procedures was held to be reasonable, as the risk of injury was high.

Give an authority where the the precaution of ensuring a contractor had insurance and safety procedures was not required, (as the risk of serious injury was low?).

Give an authority that shows how courts might use statistics when estabishing likelihood of harm.

Give an authority that shows how the increased magnitude of harm potentially suffered by a claimant, as a result of a preexisting condition, should have lead the defendant to take greater precautions in the eyes of the court.

Give an authority that shows how the magnitude of harm potentially suffered by a claimant in a dangerous sport should have lead the defendant to take greater precautions in the eyes of the court.

Give an authority that gives an example of when the courts looked at what reasonable precautions a defendant might have taken, and found that the defendant had behaved in line with a 'reasonable man'.

Give an authority that gives an example of when the courts considered what resources were available, when estabilishing what reasonable precautions a defendant might have taken.

Give an authority that gives an example of when the courts considered the significant utility of an action as outweighing an increased risk, involving ambulances.

Give an authority that gives an example of when the courts considered the significant utility of an action as outweighing an increased risk might vary from case to case.

Give an authority that gives an example of when the courts considered the significant utility of an action as outweighing an increased risk for the fire service.

What standard of care are amatuer sports people held to?

What standard should the defendant be held to if they had presented themselves as experts with special skill?

Explain Res Ipsa Loquitur and give a case example for its use.

Res Ipsa Loquitur only applies where the accident would not normally happen without negligence. If there could be an innocent explanation of the accident, then the maxim will not work. Give an authority that illustrates this point.

What's the most useless act on the statute book, and why?

Five tips for answering problem questions on Breach.

Standard of care: a reasonable first aider.