Standard of care in English law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| English Tort law |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Negligence |
| Duty of care |
| Standard of care |
| Bolam Test |
| Breach of duty |
| Causation |
| Breaking the chain |
| Acts of the claimant |
| Remoteness |
| Professional negligence |
| Loss of chance |
| Loss of right |
| Res ipsa loquitur |
| Eggshell skull |
| Defences to negligence |
| Trespass to property |
| Defamation |
| Strict liability |
| Vicarious liability |
| Rylands v. Fletcher |
| Nuisance |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Property law |
| Wills and trusts |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
In tort law, the standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. A breach of the standard is necessary for a successful action in negligence.
Contents |
[edit] General standard of care
In order not to breach a duty of care, a defendant must generally meet the standard of a 'reasonable man' as Alderson B stated in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781.
A reasonable person can be defined as 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' as Greer LJ explains in Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1933) 1 KB 205. Lord Steyn describes the term as 'commuters on the London Underground' (McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board (1999) 3 WLR).
This test is an object test, that is based on an average person. It does not require perfection, but takes into account that an average person does not foresee every risk. The average person is not assumed to be flawless.
[edit] Skilled professionals
The general test regarding standard of care would not work in every case examining a tort of negligence. Action or omissions of skilled professionals might lead to a tort of negligence. Due to their special education and certification a higher standard of care is required. This means, i.e. if a car mechanic repairs a car, the standard of care required would not be that of a reasonable person, but that of a reasonable car mechanic.
In the case Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 2 All ER 118, a test for medical practitioners has been defined, the 'Bolam test'. This test basically states that a medical practitioner is compliant with the expected standard of care if other medical professionals would have acted the same way. This test is highly controversial since it effectively prevents courts from reviewing the standards of the medical profession, and allows medical professionals to set their own standard.
Out of this controversy, the House of Lords decided in Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority (1997) UKHL 46 that courts would only follow the Bolam test if the opinion of the medical professionals can be accepted as logical by the judges.
[edit] Novices
Novices in a certain skill must show the same standard of care as a reasonable person with the particular skill.
- Nettleship v. Weston (1971) 3 All ER 581 requires a novice driver to show the same standard of care as a reasonably competent driver.
- Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority (1986) 3 All ER 801 expects a junior doctor to perform compliant to the standard of a competent doctor.
- Wells v. Cooper (1958) 2 All ER 527 states that someone who does DIY jobs repairing their own house is expected to show the same standard of care as a reasonable professional of the particular trade involved.
[edit] Children
 |
This article is a stub relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
