The Assignment on Breach of Duty

Running head: BREACH OF DUTY
Breach of Duty
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

BREACH OF DUTY1
There may be a violation of responsibility in the case of neglect if the offender fails to
satisfy the standard of carefulness essential by regulation. The complainant must also show that
the duty of care was violated by the defendant when it has been determined that the offender be
obliged the plaintiff a responsibility of carefulness. The examination regarding the breach of duty
is usually objective, but this may vary slightly.
Under the litigation of the negligence, objective test helps to establish violation of duty
the meaning of which is that the defendant is the person who can satisfy the standard of a
practical person1.
In Vaughan vs. Menlove [1837] 3 Bing NC 467 case the haystack belongs to the offender
caught fire due to poor air circulation. In numerous incidents, the offender had been cautioned
that if he entered the haystack, this would happen. The offender argued that by utilizing his
ability of best judgment and he not predict a danger of fire. However, the court was of the view
that, it was not enough for the court to retain his best judgment.
The objective test may vary and depend on the situations of the specific offender or the
case. For instance, it is not possible for an amateur soccer player to meet the expectations of the
audiences like an experienced soccer player in the first division (Condon vs. Basi [1985] 1 WLR
866).
There is a violation of duty of care in the form of ‘horseplay’ only where the actions of
the defendant leads to carelessness or an extraordinary level of inattentiveness. A similar view
has been observed in the Blake vs. Galloway [2004] 3 All ER 315 case2.
1 Kelley, Patrick J. "Restating Duty, breach, and proximate cause in negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the
rule of law." (2001) Vand. L. Rev. 54: 1039.
2 Zipursky, Benjamin C. "Foreseeability in Breach, Duty, and Proximate Cause." (2009) Wake Forest L. Rev. 44:
1247

BREACH OF DUTY2
If the defendant is a practitioner, they are kept within that discipline to the norm of a
reasonable individual. This also refers to apprentices as stated in Wilsher vs. Essex [1988] 1 AC
1074 case.
The courts consider four factors in determining whether the offender has performed
rationally or is in violation of responsibility. The factors are:
 Probability of injury which means it is not predictable that the defendant will protect
against events that cannot be foreseen as decided in Roe vs. Minister of Health [1954] 2
WLR 915;
 Gravity of injury as decided in the Wagon Mound case no. 2 [1967] 1 AC 617;
 Cost of prevention as decided in Latimer vs. AEC [1953] AC 643;
 Efficacy of the conduct of offender as decided in Watt vs. Heartforshire [1954] 1 WLR
8353.
3 Tingle, John. "Establishing breach of the duty of care in the tort of negligence." (2002) British journal of
nursing 11.17: 1128-1130.