Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims


Published by a ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû PI & Clinical Negligence expert
Practice notes

Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims


Published by a ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû PI & Clinical Negligence expert

Practice notes
imgtext

The reasonable person test

Once a court has determined that a common law duty of care exists between the parties, the next stage is for the claimant to prove that the defendant has breached this duty ie the defendant’s conduct has fallen below the standard of care required. Although expert evidence may be obtained this is usually a question of fact. For guidance on whether a duty of care is owed, see Practice Note: Duty of care in personal injury claims.

In assessing whether the defendant has breached the duty of care, the court will normally use the reasonable person test ie what would the reasonable person have done, or not done, in the circumstances of this particular incident. For guidance on breach of duty in clinical negligence claims, see Practice Note: Duty of care and breach in clinical negligence claims.

When considering the standard of care required of the defendant, the court may consider:

  1. •

    the capacity of the defendant eg age—see below

  2. •

    whether the claimant gave consent—see

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related legal acts:
Key definition:
Duty of care definition
What does Duty of care mean?

A duty of care refers to the circumstances and relationships giving rise to an obligation upon a defendant to take proper care to avoid causing some form of foreseeable harm to the claimant in all the circumstances of the case in question.

Read more

Popular documents

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment pursuant to CPR 12.4(1) will the court order a disposal

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment pursuant to CPR 12.4(1) will the court order a disposal hearing or allocate the case to a track and give standard fast track directions?Setting aside default judgmentWhere a claimant has obtained default judgment, a defendant may still wish to defend

Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury?

Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury?The essence of a defence of volenti non fit injuria (‘to a willing person, no injury is done’) is that the claimant understands the danger of the situation and willingly consents to the risk of injury. In such circumstances, should injury occur, the

If a claimant has issued proceedings against two defendants and subsequently the first defendant makes a

If a claimant has issued proceedings against two defendants and subsequently the first defendant makes a Part 36 offer to settle the matter despite liability being outstanding between the two defendants, can the first defendant then pursue the second defendant for a recovery? Will separate

Material contribution in personal injury claims

Material contribution in personal injury claimsThe standard test for determining whether the defendant’s breach caused the claimant’s loss is the ‘but for’ test. This test requires the court to consider: but for the breach of the duty by the defendant, would the claimant have sustained the damage?