In Hedley Byrne, the defendant breached the duty; breach of duty can be established only when it has been proven that the defendant has failed to so something which a reasonable man would have done in that situations or has done something which a reasonable man would not have done. This has been supported by the Bolton v Stone 1951 case; Stone was injured when she was struck by a cricket ball outside her house, the brought an action against the cricket club in nuisance and negligence. The field was surrounded by a 7 foot fence and the pitch was 10 feet below the ground so the fence was 17 feet above the pitch. In this case the defendant took all precautions and the likelihood of harm was low hence there was no breach of duty.
Then liability can arise of it has been established that the breach of duty caused the loss. The case that will support this is Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969) in which a widow sued the hospital for negligence after her husband died having attended the hospital in the evening and been sent home by a doctor without being examined. The hospital did owe a duty of care to examine the man. However, the man had been poisoned with arsenic and even if he had been diagnosed correctly and treated he would have died anyway. This …show more content…
A similar case is the Chaudhary v Prabhakar (1989) 1 WLR 29 where the claimant relied upon the defendant’s statement that the vehicle was perfect, but the car was unroadworthy due to previous accident. The court of appeal held that there was a duty of care owed as the defendant knew the claimant relied on his claim. But this case contradicted the Hedley Byrne as it suggested that duty could arise where advice sought or given in business
Then liability can arise of it has been established that the breach of duty caused the loss. The case that will support this is Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969) in which a widow sued the hospital for negligence after her husband died having attended the hospital in the evening and been sent home by a doctor without being examined. The hospital did owe a duty of care to examine the man. However, the man had been poisoned with arsenic and even if he had been diagnosed correctly and treated he would have died anyway. This …show more content…
A similar case is the Chaudhary v Prabhakar (1989) 1 WLR 29 where the claimant relied upon the defendant’s statement that the vehicle was perfect, but the car was unroadworthy due to previous accident. The court of appeal held that there was a duty of care owed as the defendant knew the claimant relied on his claim. But this case contradicted the Hedley Byrne as it suggested that duty could arise where advice sought or given in business