1.

The standard of a reasonable man

The standard of a reasonable man is not that of an average man. The rule has been developed as follows: (a) The test is one of knowledge and general practice existing at the time, not hindsight or subsequent change of practice. See:

Roe vs Minister of Health 1954

(b) A person who professes to have a particular skill, for example in a profession, is required to use the skill which he exam purports to have. But an error of judgment is not automatically a case of negligence: Whitehouse v Jordan 1981 (c) In deciding what is reasonable care the balance must be struck between advantage and risk. The driver of a fire engine may exceed the normal prudent speed on his way to a fire but not on the way back.

1. The standard of a reasonable man

(d) If A owes a duty of care to B and A knows that B is unusually vulnerable, a higher standard of care is expected. For example, B might be a child inexperienced employee given risky work to do or a person with a thin skull. Paris v Stepney Bourough

Council 1951.
Roe v Minister of Health 1954

The fact: A doctor gave a patient an injection, taking all the precautions required at that time. The drug was contaminated and the patient became paralyzed. At the time of the trial seven years later medical practice had been improved to avoid the risk of undetected contaminated (through an invisible crack in a glass tube). Decision: The proper test was normal practice based on the state of medical knowledge at the time. The doctor was not at fault in failing to anticipate later developments.

Whitehouse v Jordan 1981

The facts:
The claimant went to the hospital to have a baby and had been identified as likely to have a difficult birth. The defendant surgeon first tried delivery by forceps but this was unsuccessful and he then carried out a Caesarean delivery. The baby suffered brain damage and the claimant argued that too much force had been used in trying the forceps delivery, and this caused asphyxia and brain damage.

Whitehouse v Jordan 1981

Decision: The House of Lords, in dismissing the claimants appeal, said that the test whether a surgeon has been negligent is whether he has met the standard of the ordinary skilled surgeon. The doctor's standard of care did not fall below that of a reasonable doctor in the circumstances and so the baby was awarded no compensation.
http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=aZVS9HsHiJ4C&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=white+house+and+jordan+1981+standard +of+reasonable+man&source=bl&ots=DxtFKNlThn&sig=SbCfqFydc89wbn3j0PObfaM3dXo&hl=vi&ei=nXMmS6fEJYrctg Oq15XgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951

The facts: P was employed by K on vehicle maintenance. P had already lost the sight of one eye. He was hammering metal. It was not the normal practice to issue protective goggles to men employed on this work since the risk of eye injury was small. A chip of metal flew into P's eye and blinded him. Decision: Although industrial practice did not require the use of goggles by workers with normal sight, a higher standard of care owed to P because an injury to his remaining good eye would blind him. K had failed to maintain a proper standard of care in relation to P.

2. Res ipsa loquitur

It is to help the plaintiff show the proof that the defendant owed him the duty of care and the defendant failed in that dutylack of reasonable care In some circumstance, the negligence can be drawn from the fact- the facts speak for themselves.

2. Res ipsa loquitur

It rests on the claimant to show both that the defendant owed him a duty of reasonable care and that the defendant failed in that duty. In some circumstances the claimant may argue that the facts speak for themselves (res ipsa loquitur): loquitur ): that want of care is the only possible explanation for what happened and negligence on the part of the defendant must be presumed.

2. Res ipsa loquitur

To rely on this principle the claimant must first show:
1. The thing which caused the injury was under the management and control of the defendant 2. The accident was not occurred if the defendant used proper care.

Scott v London & St Katharine Docks Co 1865

The facts: S was passing in front of the defendants warehouse. Six bags of sugar fell on him. The decision: In the absence of explanation it must be presumed that the fall of the bags was due to want of care on the part of defendant.

Res ipsa loquitur

Similarly, in Mahon v Osborne 1939 the principle of res ipsa loquitor was argued when a surgeon let a swab (mop with cotton wool for applying medicaments) inside patient after an operaton.