levo

Tort: Negligence

Breach of duty and the reasonable man

  • 3 things to know
  • Components 2 and 3

Overview

The objective standard set in Vaughan v Menlove, why good intentions and personal wealth are irrelevant, what common practice proves, and the special cases of the learner driver and the amateur doing a job at home.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

What standard applies to a driver disabled by an illness they do not know about?

Key term

What must a claimant prove to establish breach of duty?

Key term

Who is the reasonable man?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    What must a claimant prove to establish breach of duty?

    Model answer

    The claimant must prove that the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of the reasonable person. The court sets the standard and then applies it to the facts.

  2. 2

    Who is the reasonable man?

    Model answer

    The reasonable man is an ordinary and prudent person doing the activity in question. The reasonable man was famously described as the man on the Clapham omnibus.

  3. 3

    Why is the standard of care described as objective?

    Model answer

    The standard asks what a reasonable person would have done, not what this defendant thought sensible. A defendant's own inexperience or slowness is therefore irrelevant.

  4. 4

    What did Vaughan v Menlove (1837) decide?

    Model answer

    Vaughan v Menlove (1837) concerned a hayrick that caught fire after the defendant ignored repeated warnings. The court applied the standard of a reasonable person and rejected a plea that the defendant had used his own best judgment.

  5. 5

    Is a defendant's good intention relevant to breach of duty?

    Model answer

    A defendant who tried hard and meant well is still in breach if the conduct fell below the objective standard. Good intentions do not lower the standard of care to what the defendant could manage.

  6. 6

    How does a court decide what a reasonable person would have done?

    Model answer

    A court weighs the size of the risk against the cost and practicality of guarding against it. Ordinary practice in the trade or activity is strong evidence of what is reasonable.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

See a huge jump in your memorisation

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz consolidates the facts

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It trains answer structure

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Tort: Negligence, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.