LAW 1507 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Tweed Shire, School, Die Mannequin
30 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
TORTS LECTURE WEEK 5 STANDARD OF CARE
Ignore negligence in the problem paper but you won’t lose marks
We’ll get to meet with the marker of the short problem paper after it’s marked
Establish what ought to have been done in the circumstances
You do not ‘breach’ your standard of care you are failing to meet the required
standard of care and therefore you have breached your duty of care
Failure to do something that a reasonable person would have done
Standard of care is “independent of the idiosyncrasies of the individual”- Lord
MacMillan, Glasgow Corporation v Muir (2943) AC 448
What was done and what ought to have been done is a question of fact not a
binding precedent. You say ‘similar to the situation in … there may be a breach’
What is it alleged that the defendant is meant to have done and what would the
reasonable person have done in that situation
S31 Standard of Care Civil Liability Act 1936 (S.A)
Key point- the actions of the reasonable person in the defendant’s position-
subjective test
Standard of knowledge different in different times and circumstances
Reasonable person test- S32 (2) Calculus of Negligence-
1) Probability 2) Gravity of the risk 3) Burden of adequate precautions
All factors will be considered as it is a question of fact
S32 Precautions against risk look at slides
If the facts scenario says something like ‘Fred was speeding.’ Ask the burden, the
severity etc. It’s not hard to see that he shouldn’t have been speeding.
1
Melissa Sparrow (a1668063)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Ignore negligence in the problem paper but you won"t lose marks. We"ll get to meet with the marker of the short problem paper after it"s marked. Establish what ought to have been done in the circumstances. You do not breach" your standard of care you are failing to meet the required standard of care and therefore you have breached your duty of care. Failure to do something that a reasonable person would have done. Standard of care is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the individual - lord. Macmillan, glasgow corporation v muir (2943) ac 448. What was done and what ought to have been done is a question of fact not a binding precedent. You say similar to the situation in there may be a breach". What is it alleged that the defendant is meant to have done and what would the reasonable person have done in that situation. S31 standard of care civil liability act 1936 (s. a)
