The Bolam test, to be applied when there is a difference of opinion in a professional field, is that an action will not be negligent if it would be approved by a ‘responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art’.

The plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball hit over a fence and into the road where she was standing. The cricket club was held not to have breached the duty of care owed to her owing to the unforeseeability of such an accident combined with the high cost of avoiding it.

This ‘borderline’ decision, by the House of Lords, illustrates the way that courts expect the reasonable person to assess the risk of a given situation.

An urn spilled while being carried down a corridor and several children were scalded, who sued the occupier in negligence. It was held that the accident would not have been foreseeable by the ordinary reasonable person and therefore the duty of care had not been breached.

The objective standard of care, the foresight of the reasonable man, must be applied according to the circumstances pertaining at the relevant time.

A baby was injured at birth when his mother was not fully informed of the risks involved in methods of delivery.

The correct standard of care regarding medical consent is that which ‘the reasonable person in the patient’s position’ would consider ‘material’.

Two 15-year-old girls were fencing with plastic rulers at school. One of the rulers cracked and a piece of plastic entered the eye of one of the girls, causing her to lose sight in that eye. The Court of Appeal dismissed the negligence claim.

‘The standard by which [his] conduct is to be measured is not that to be expected of a reasonable adult but that reasonably to be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence and experience.’ This principle follows that of the Australian case of McHale v Watson (1966).

A driving instructor successfully claimed in negligence against a pupil when he was injured in an accident she caused on her third lesson.

The duty of care to be expected of a learner driver is that of the reasonably competent and experienced driver.

A negligence action was brought by the owners of two ships which were damaged in a large fire in Sydney harbour. The fire had occurred after the unlawful discharge of oil by the defendant. The Privy Council held that although such a fire was unlikely it was nevertheless foreseeable.

Lack of any worthwhile purpose in the defendant’s discharge of the oil and the low cost of avoidance was weighed against the great extent of potential damage in finding that in the circumstances there had been a breach of duty. This event also gave rise to a very important case on the subject of causation in negligence.

The negligent act in question had been a junior doctor’s administration of excess oxygen to a premature baby in a neonatal special care unit. The issue relating to breach was to what extent the inexperience of the doctor could be taken into account.

The applicable standard of care related not to the person, nor to the task, but to the post occupied within the medical care team. Within the ambit of the post, no further account would be taken of relative inexperience.

A photographer at a horse show was seriously injured when a horse and rider breached the perimeter of the ring where he was standing. The standard of care at a sporting event was described in terms of the expectations of the ‘reasonable spectator’. It was recognized that in sporting situations it was more difficult to exercise ‘reasonable care’.

Here there would be no breach of duty unless the sportsman had shown ‘a reckless disregard of the spectator’s safety’. This standard has also been applied between participants in sport.