Breach of Duty in Negligence

teachlawhub
Dec 30, 2025
7 min read

Under the law of negligence, a claimant can bring a civil claim for compensatory damages if they have suffered injury or damage as a result of the defendant’s actions. The law of negligence is concerned with compensating individuals when injury or damage has been caused by the defendant’s failure to take reasonable care.

To succeed in a negligence claim, the claimant must prove three elements:

1. That the defendant owed them a duty of care;

2. That the defendant breached that duty of care; and

3. That the defendant’s breach caused the damage suffered.

This blog focuses on the second element, establishing a breach of duty. Once a duty of care has been established, the claimant must show that the defendant failed to meet the required standard of care expected by law and legally breached their duty of care.

What Is a Breach of Duty?

A breach of duty occurs when the defendant does not act to the standard required by the law.

The legal definition of breach of duty comes from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856). In this case, the court stated that a breach of duty is an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or doing something which a reasonable person would not do. Here the defendants installed water pipes under a street, which later froze during exceptionally cold weather. The frozen pipe burst and caused flooding damage to the claimant’s house. The court held there was no breach because the defendants had acted reasonably given normal weather conditions.

How Do Courts Decide If There Is a Breach?

When deciding whether a defendant has breached their duty of care, the courts apply a structured approach. They will consider:

Whether the defendant acted like the reasonable person,
Whether any characteristics of the defendant affect the standard of care, and
Whether risk factors mean that a higher or lower standard of care should apply in the situation.

Did the Defendant Act Like the Reasonable Person

This is a key question in breach of duty, and it must be decided whether the defendant’s behaviour fell below the standard of the reasonable person. The reasonable person is not perfect, but they are expected to act with ordinary care and skill. The law requires that the defendant is compared to a reasonable person carrying out the same activity or job. If the defendant’s conduct falls below this standard, they will be in breach of their duty of care.

This principle was confirmed in Wells v Cooper (1954), which clarified that the reasonable person is the ordinary person in the street doing the same job as the defendant. Here, the defendant fitted a door handle using short screws. When the claimant pulled the door shut, the handle came off and caused him to fall and injure himself. The court held that the defendant was not in breach of duty. They decided that he did act in the same way as a reasonably competent amateur carpenter/homeowner completing repairs and he was not expected to meet the standard of a reasonable professional carpenter.

The Characteristics of the Defendant

Although the reasonable person test is central, the courts recognise that certain characteristics of the defendant can affect the standard of care expected. These include whether the defendant is a professional, a learner, or a child.

Professionals

If the defendant is acting as a professional, they will be in breach of their duty of care if they fail to meet the standard of the reasonably competent professional working in the same field. This is known as the Bolam test.

This legal rule came from Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957) here the court had to decide whether the defendant acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals in that area. In this case the claimant received electric shock therapy for mental illness. He was not warned of the risk of broken bones and suffered a fractured pelvis. The court found no breach because the treatment followed accepted medical practice at the time.

However, professionals must also ensure that patients give informed consent.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) established that medical professionals breach their duty if they fail to inform patients of material risks involved in treatment. In this case a diabetic pregnant woman was not warned of risks linked to natural childbirth. Her baby suffered serious injuries following complications during birth. The court held there was a breach because the doctor failed to explain significant risks.

Learners and Trainees

Learners and trainees are not judged by the standard of a learner but by the standard of a reasonably competent qualified professional.

The legal rule from Nettleship v Weston (1971) is that a learner must meet the same standard of care as an experienced. Here a learner driver lost control of a car during a driving lesson. Her instructor was injured when the car crashed. The court held there was a breach because learners must meet the standard of competent drivers.

Children

Where the defendant is a child, the standard of care is lowered to reflect their age.

The legal test from Mullins v Richards (1998) asks whether the child acted like a reasonable child of the same age. In this case two 15 year old girls were playfighting with plastic rulers at school. One ruler snapped and injured the claimant’s eye. The court found no breach because the risk of injury was not obvious to a reasonable 15 year old.

Risk Factors and Breach of Duty

In addition to the reasonable person test, the courts will also consider whether any risk factors apply and whether these will higher or lower the standard of care owed. These factors help the court decide whether it was reasonable for the defendant to act as they did in the circumstances.

The risk factors that can be applied are:

Adequate Precautions.
Seriousness of the Risk.
Special Characteristics of the Claimant.
The Public Benefit of Taking the Risk.

Adequate Precautions

Here the courts will consider whether the defendant took adequate precautions against the risk of injury, and whether their actions here will higher or lower the standard of care that is owed. If the risk of harm is foreseeable and the cost of taking the precautions is low, the defendant is expected to take those precautions, if the defendant doesn’t take these precautions, then a higher standard of care is owed. If the defendant does take adequate precautions against the risk of injury, then a lower standard of care is owed.

In Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953), the court stated that the costs of the precautions are weighted against the risk. Here a factory floor flooded and was covered with sawdust and warning signs. A worker slipped and was injured. The courts decided that the Defendant had taken all practical precautions against injury, so a lower standard of care applied, and they did not breach their duty of care.

Seriousness of the Risk

The seriousness of the potential harm affects the standard of care. Where the risk of injury or harm is high, a higher standard of care is owed. However, where there is a low or no risk of harm, a lower standard of care may apply, as shown in Bolton v Stone (1951), here a cricket ball was hit out of a ground and struck a passerby. Evidence showed this had happened very rarely over many years. The court held there was no breach due to the low risk of injury, the courts stated that they will consider the size of the risk compared to the cost and effort of putting in the precautions.

Additionally, this risk factor can be seen in Haley v London Electricity Board (1965), here roadworks were left with warning signs but no barriers. A blind man fell into a hole and was injured. The courts stated that if there is a serious risk of injury a higher standard of care is owed, this is because the reasonable man takes extra care against serious risks but not small ones.

Special Characteristics of the Claimant

If the claimant has special characteristics that make them more vulnerable, and these are known to the defendant, a higher standard of care is owed.

This rule comes from Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951). The claimant was blind in one eye and worked as a mechanic. His employer failed to provide safety goggles. He lost sight in his remaining eye and the court found a breach of duty and stated states that if the Claimant has a disability or illness, or arguably their age, that is known to the Defendant then they are expected to take more care around them because they know this factor.

Public Benefit of Taking the Risk

Sometimes the defendant’s actions have a strong social or public benefit. If this benefit outweighs the risk of harm, a lower standard of care may apply.

This principle was demonstrated in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954). Here the courts stated that the emergency of the situation and utility of the defendant's conduct in saving a life outweighed the need to take precautions. In this case, Firefighters transported heavy rescue equipment in an unsuitable vehicle to save a trapped woman. A firefighter was injured when the equipment fell. The court held there was no breach because saving life outweighed the risk.

A similar approach was taken in Day v High Performance Sports (2003) where an experienced climber fell and was seriously injured at an indoor climbing wall. A manager attempted an emergency rescue but made mistakes. The court found no breach due to the emergency situation and social utility, they decided that when in an emergency situation, with a high degree of social utility, the benefits of the Defendant’s actions outweighed the risk of injury.

Conclusion:

Breach of duty focuses on whether the defendant acted reasonably in the circumstances. The courts balance the reasonable person test with the defendant’s characteristics and relevant risk factors. This area of negligence is very relevant to both A Level Law and BTEC Applied Law exams and requires clear application of legal rules to the facts of each case.

Click below to download the free TeachLaw student activity pack.