Breach of Duty

Introduction

After proving that the defendant owed a duty of care, the plaintiff must next show that the defendant breached (violated) that duty.

A breach of duty occurs when the defendant fails to take the level of care that a reasonable and prudent person (careful and sensible person) would take in similar circumstances.

Meaning / Definition

Breach of duty means failure to take the care that the law requires in a particular situation.

The standard used by courts is the conduct of a reasonable person. The law does not demand the highest possible level of care. It only requires the level of care that an ordinary careful person would take under similar conditions.

In deciding whether a duty has been breached, courts mainly consider:

• The importance and usefulness of the activity, and
• The magnitude (seriousness) of the risk involved.

Modes or Types

Importance and Usefulness of the Activity

Sometimes certain activities involve risks, but they are important for society. The law therefore allows some level of risk so that useful activities can continue.

A balance must be struck between:

• The usefulness of the act, and
• The risk created by it.

For example, emergency vehicles such as fire brigade vehicles may travel at high speeds to save lives. The same speed may be considered negligent for ordinary vehicles.

Thus, what is considered reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case.

Magnitude of Risk

The degree of care required depends on the seriousness and likelihood of the risk.

• If the risk of harm is high, a greater level of care is required.
• If the risk is low, a lower level of care may be sufficient.

For example, a driver must take extra care when driving:

• near schools
• near children or elderly persons
• near visually impaired persons (persons who cannot see)

The higher the risk, the greater the care required.

Special Skill and Professional Responsibility

If a person undertakes an activity requiring special skill, the law expects that person to have that skill.

A person who lacks the necessary skill but still undertakes such an activity may be considered negligent.

Thus professionals such as engineers, doctors, and drivers must perform their tasks with the level of care expected in their profession.

Sudden Emergency Situation

When a person faces a sudden emergency, the law does not expect perfect judgment or calm decision-making.

If a person acts reasonably in a moment of danger, even if the decision later turns out to be incorrect, it may not amount to negligence.

The law recognises that in emergency situations people cannot always act with perfect accuracy.

Important Case Law

Daborn v. Bath Tramways

The court observed that reducing the speed of all trains might reduce accidents, but it would make transport inefficient. Therefore, some degree of risk is acceptable when an activity is socially useful.

Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd

Due to heavy rain, a factory floor became slippery with water mixed with oil. The factory owners spread sawdust over the floor but some slippery patches remained. The plaintiff slipped and was injured. The court held that the defendants had taken reasonable precautions and were not negligent.

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Suresh Kumar

An overhead electric wire sagged to about three feet above the ground. A minor boy touched it and was electrocuted. The Electricity Board had a duty to maintain the wire at a safe height and was held liable for breach of statutory duty.

Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor

Poisonous berries grew in a public garden and looked attractive to children. A child ate them and died. The authorities had neither fenced the plant nor placed warning signs. The court held the corporation liable for negligence.

Bishwanath Gupta v. Munna

A truck was driven at a speed of 10–12 miles per hour near children playing on the road. The court held that even this speed was negligent because the driver should have anticipated that children might suddenly cross the road.

Jones v. Staveley Iron & Chemical Co. Ltd

The court held that an employer owes a higher standard of care to workers in a factory when ensuring their safety.

Distinction / Comparison

Duty of Care vs Breach of Duty

Duty of Care

• A legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm.
• It establishes the relationship between the parties.

Breach of Duty

• Occurs when the defendant fails to meet the required standard of care.
• It is the violation of the duty already owed.

Thus, duty of care creates the obligation, while breach of duty is the failure to fulfil that obligation.

Practical Example

A truck driver is passing through a road where many children are playing. Even if the truck is moving slowly, the driver must be extremely careful because children may suddenly cross the road.

If the driver continues driving without slowing further and injures a child, it may amount to breach of duty because the risk was clearly foreseeable.

Summary

• Breach of duty occurs when a person fails to take reasonable care.
• Courts use the standard of a reasonable and prudent person.
• The usefulness of the activity and the risk involved are important factors.
• Greater risk requires greater care.
• Professionals must exercise the skill expected in their field.
• In sudden emergencies, the law does not expect perfect judgment.