Skip to main content Accessibility help
Internet Explorer 11 is being discontinued by Microsoft in August 2021. If you have difficulties viewing the site on Internet Explorer 11 we recommend using a different browser such as Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Apple Safari or Mozilla Firefox.

Update 13th September 2024: Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more 

Home
> Breach II – Proving…

Chapter 7: Breach II – Proving negligence

Chapter 7: Breach II – Proving negligence

pp. 338-403

Authors

, Queen Mary University of London
  • Add bookmark
  • Cite
  • Share

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Breach is doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do, or failing to do something which a prudent and reasonable person would do.

This definition of breach, adapted from Alderson B's ‘classic statement’ in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co back in 1856, highlights the key question: what would a reasonable person have done differently, to avoid the risk of harm or injury occurring to C? If the answer to that is, ‘nothing’, then breach will fail.

That something has gone wrong is, of itself, absolutely no evidence of breach. Injuries, damage, adverse outcomes, and less-than-desirable results, may all arise from an exercise of reasonable care. Courts have, on occasion, addressed remarks to Cs for whom they obviously felt a great deal of sympathy for their misfortunes, but for whom they could not find in favour, because there was no lack of reasonable care. For example, motor vehicle accidents, and medical mishaps, may ruin young lives, e.g., in Arnot v Sprake, where the Court of Appeal held against car accident victim C, concluding that it was ‘highly regrettable that unfortunately [C] has suffered serious injury as a result of the impact he sustained’; and in Nawoor v Barking Havering and Brentwood HA, where a birth went very badly:

the family of this child must feel that an injury so severe, with such obvious long-term consequences, could only be the product of something going wrong, and negligently wrong. Understandable that may be, but it is not the appropriate conclusion in this case. I regret to have reached the conclusion I have, because this child is clearly going to be affected in the longer term as a teenager and an adult, but regret it though I do, it is the conclusion I firmly reach.

About the book

Access options

Review the options below to login to check your access.

Purchase options

There are no purchase options available for this title.

Have an access code?

To redeem an access code, please log in with your personal login.

If you believe you should have access to this content, please contact your institutional librarian or consult our FAQ page for further information about accessing our content.

Also available to purchase from these educational ebook suppliers