‘ The standard of care owed is based on an objective analysis of the circumstances,
ignoring all subjective elements’. Discuss with reference to relevant case law.
The focus of this essay is to examine the law of Negligence and comment upon whether
the current law on standard of care is objective or subjective, drawing on relevant case law.
First it must be established what is meant by negligence, which is one significant part of
the law of Tort. In its simplest form negligence is careless conduct and has three required
elements; a legal duty of care, a breach of the duty of care and damages or loss resulting
from the breach of duty. This essay will focus on the second element of negligence; the
breach of duty of care, as this is where the standard of care a claimant is owed comes into
question.
In order to establish whether there has been a breach of a duty of care, we must establish
the standard of care required in negligence cases. This helps to determine whether a breach
has occurred, as anything that falls below this standard of care will constitute a breach. The
first test used to establish a standard of care is the reasonable man test, as seen in Blyth v
Birmingham Waterworks. Baron Alderson stated, ‘Negligence is the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do’ (Butler, 2010). This is an objective test which applies the
same standard to all individuals, and is not adjusted to fit the particular qualities of the
defendant. Another example of a case which has to consider the behaviour of an ordinary
person in ordinary circumstances, ignoring any special skills or knowledge, is Glasgow
Corporation v Muir (1943). This case gave rise to two important aspects; firstly the level
of care required is dependent on the activity that the defendant is carrying out and secondly
‘The standard of foresight of the reasonable man is, in one sense, an impersonal test. It
eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular
person whose conduct is in question.’ This is an objective standard and allows none of the
personal attributes of the defendant to be taken into account, although it has a subjective
element in that considers the facts of the case and what the reasonable man would do in
