The Tort of Negligence, Breach of Duty and Condon v Basi PDF

Preview

Summary

This document covers the breach of duty element of negligence, in particular the standard of care, and the extent to which this covers.

Condon v. Basi has been broken down and analysed as to how this changed the law on standard of care, in a sportsmanship setting.

Perfect f...

Description

The Tort of Negligence – Breach of Duty and Condon v. Basi

The tort of negligence arises from the landmark case Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932], from which branched the four requirements for an act of negligence in law to be established. These four requirements are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The defendant owed a duty of care The defendant was in breach of that duty The breach caused damage, and The damage was not too remote

What is a Breach of Duty? A breach of duty in the legal sense is breaching the legal duty of care you owe to your legal neighbour. This is where a defendant fails to meet the legal standard of care as required by the law. To decide if a breach of duty has occurred, an objective test will be applied to determine this. This objective test comes from Vaughan v. Menlove [1837]. This objective test is as follows: The defendant is expected to meet the standard of care from a reasonable person. The objective test can vary depending on the circumstances of the defendant.

In the instance of professional sportsmanship, many questions regarding standard of care may arise, as displayed in the case Condon v. Basi.

Facts of the Case The claimant suffered a broken leg after being tackled by the defendant during a football match. The claimant was a player for the Whittle Wanderers and the defendant was a player for the Khalso Football Club, which were both in the roster for the Leamington local league. The question that the courts had to ask was, what is the standard of care expected from a football player during a match?

Judgement The courts held that there is no set standard of care for every football player. Instead, the court suggested that the standard of care varies depending on the professional level of the player in question. In this instance, the defendant breached their duty and standard of care against their opponent, as the tackle was a reckless act which went against the standards that are expected of a local league football player. Although a football player may accept that they will face minor injuries during matches, the broken leg was disproportional to what is expected to transpire in a match of football. This injury breaks many of the rules that the game has. Sir Donaldson MR stated: “The standard is objective, but objective in a different set of circumstances. This there will of course be a higher degree of care required in a First Division football match than of a player in a Fourth Division football match.”

How does this Impact the Law? The decision from this case set the precedent that the standard of care varies dependent on the level of expertise of the player. For example, this means that a professional player playing in the FA Cup would need to have a higher standard of care against their opponent, than a local league football player would have. The courts also stated that, although players in sports accept the injuries consistent to the game they are playing, they are not expected to protect and guard against injuries that do not fall within the rules of the game....