breach of duty

In the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must show (1) a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damage caused by the breach. Breach means the defendant failed to do what a reasonable person would have done, or did what a reasonable person would not have done, in the circumstances.

The standard is objective. Courts weigh the likelihood and seriousness of harm, the cost of precautions and the social value of the activity. Professionals are judged by the standard of a reasonably competent member of their profession, not the best (the Bolam test, applied in Indian medical negligence cases). Where the facts speak for themselves, res ipsa loquitur may help the plaintiff prove breach.

Example

Leaving an open trench on a busy road without barricades or lights was a breach of duty, so the municipality was liable to the cyclist who fell into it.

See also

negligence · duty of care · res ipsa loquitur · medical negligence

Read more in the study notes

• Separation of powers and its bearing on administrative law (Administrative Law)
• Rule of law and droit administratif (Administrative Law)
• Delegated legislation: meaning, growth, merits and administrative directions (Administrative Law)
• Control of delegated legislation: parliamentary, procedural and judicial (Administrative Law)
• Judicial power of the administration: quasi-judicial functions and administrative adjudication (Administrative Law)
• Reasoned decisions, exceptions to natural justice, effect of breach and Article 136 (Administrative Law)