Continued principles affecting standard of care

Particular skill if you claim to have a professional skill you should be able to achieve the level of a professional with that skill. Lacks of skill – peculiarities or disabilities of the defendant are not relevant. No hindsight – the test is one of knowledge and general practice existing at the time, not hindsight or subsequent change of practice. Body of opinion – a claim against a professional person will fair if he or she can point to a body of professional opinion that supports the approach taken.

Vulnerability – at particular risk. Example of vulnerability is Paris v Stepney 1951 case. It is about one-eyed mechanic who could not be employed as a mechanic because he is at particular risk already – if he loses his only eye he will be blind. If someone is vulnerable you owe them a greater duty of care.

Res ipsa loquitur – the facts speak for themselves (helps when making a claim).

You do not have to show how the breach occurred, but you do have to show that a breach did occur. If you can show that:

1. the cause of the breach was under the control of the defendant

2. the damage would not have happened if they had taken proper care

then you can claim Res ipsa loquitur: it must be your fault because the accident would not have happened if you had done you job properly. The details are not important.

e.g. Scott v London & St Katharine Docks Co 1865: a man was passing in front of the defendant`s warehouse and six bags of sugar fell on him. It must be presumed that the fall of the bags of sugar was due to want of care on the part of the defendants.