Once it is established that Defendant owes a duty of care to plaintiff, it must then prove that Defendant had breached that duty.
The test is standard of care of a reasonable man. What a reasonable man in such circumstances will do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable will not do.
Please refer to the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.
However the standard of care various according to the circumstances.
Please refer to the case of Glasgow Corp v Muir.
The test is standard of care of a reasonable man. What a reasonable man in such circumstances will do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable will not do.
Please refer to the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.
However the standard of care various according to the circumstances.
Please refer to the case of Glasgow Corp v Muir.
Duty of Care for Professionals
Bolam Test
Where the situation is involved with use of some special skill/competencies, the standard is of an ordinary skilled man exercising or professing to have such skill. No need to prove standard of highest expert skill.
Please refer to the case of :-
i. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee.
ii. Chim Keow v Govt of Malaysia & Anor - - doctor failed to inquire medical history before prescribe penicillin and patient died. Held liable.
Bolam Test
Where the situation is involved with use of some special skill/competencies, the standard is of an ordinary skilled man exercising or professing to have such skill. No need to prove standard of highest expert skill.
Please refer to the case of :-
i. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee.
ii. Chim Keow v Govt of Malaysia & Anor - - doctor failed to inquire medical history before prescribe penicillin and patient died. Held liable.
iii. Elizabeth Choo v Govt. of Malaysia - - not negligence ig before follow general and approve practice in the situation which he faces.
In deciding the standard of care, the court will consider the following factors. What reasonable man will do in such a circumstances.
i. Whether defendant foresees the consequence cases (harm). This depends on particular time and the experience. Please refer to the case of ROC v Minister of Wealth.
ii. Magnitude of the risk. This involve the probability of injury case and seriousness of injury.
Bolton v Stone - - although D foresee but the risk was small. So not liable.
Miller v Jackson - - risk of injury to property and person is high held liable.
iii. Social utility. If the purpose is important then D is justified if he expose plaintiff to that risk. Please refer to the case of Watt v Merfordshire County Council.
iv. Practicability of precautions. Risk must be balance with cost and practicability of eliminating the risk. Please refer to Latimer’s case.
In deciding the standard of care, the court will consider the following factors. What reasonable man will do in such a circumstances.
i. Whether defendant foresees the consequence cases (harm). This depends on particular time and the experience. Please refer to the case of ROC v Minister of Wealth.
ii. Magnitude of the risk. This involve the probability of injury case and seriousness of injury.
Bolton v Stone - - although D foresee but the risk was small. So not liable.
Miller v Jackson - - risk of injury to property and person is high held liable.
iii. Social utility. If the purpose is important then D is justified if he expose plaintiff to that risk. Please refer to the case of Watt v Merfordshire County Council.
iv. Practicability of precautions. Risk must be balance with cost and practicability of eliminating the risk. Please refer to Latimer’s case.
