Express Bus Company Case
MY LORDS,
Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by Miss Sandra Johnson and others (original claimants) against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The action under review is whether the two Respondents, Express Bus Company (EBC) Ltd and Blasts Ltd, were in breach of duty of care to the deceased and injured children.
2. It is worth explaining at the outset of this judgment about the definition of negligence. 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 . In order to succeed in claiming negligence, the claimants must show “on the balance of probabilities” …show more content…
As for Blasts Ltd, the evidence shows that they have broken the traffic rule by parking in non-parking area. It is not conclusive to claim liability or it might simplify the task of the judge. Their expected amount of care should also be considered, which should be proportionate to the degree of risk run and to the magnitude of the mischief that may be occasioned. The lorry in question loaded with fireworks which a reasonable and prudent person would foresee that it will cause explosion if due care is not taken. With reference to the Rule 274 , the Respondent should warn other traffics by hazard warning light and put a warning triangle on the road. Rule 284 and 285 suggested that dangerous goods, which are fireworks in the present case, should be marked with plain orange reflective plates. In addition, the lorry broke down at the day before the accident, Blasts Ltd should have plenty of time to ask for a trailer service to retrieve the lorry from the scene. Blasts Ltd did none of the above, they recklessly underestimated the foreseeability of harm and degree of risk (see Bolton v Stone , Paris v Stepney ) of their omission to …show more content…
With the second principle of Bolam, we should consider that whether the defendants’ act is regarded as proper by one responsible body of professional opinion. In Bolam, McNair J stated “mere personal belief that a particular technique is no defence unless that belief is based on reasonable grounds” . How to drive right in bad weather is not “progressive science”, the skills of the Respondents were based on experience and common practice. EBC Ltd and Blasts Ltd may have guidelines for their drivers about how to tackle such situation, or there are common practices amount the drivers. Can the common practice itself be negligence? Lord Browne-Wikinson’s in Bolitho made it clear that in rare case a judge would be entitled to reject the opinions of professional experts, if he or she felt that their opinions is not reasonable or responsible. Do the Respondents have reasonable grounds not to adopt the opinion of taking precautions? Taking the magnitude of the accident and the cost of precautions into account, their decision is unreasonable and irresponsible. They mere recklessly ignore the consequence of not doing
Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by Miss Sandra Johnson and others (original claimants) against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The action under review is whether the two Respondents, Express Bus Company (EBC) Ltd and Blasts Ltd, were in breach of duty of care to the deceased and injured children.
2. It is worth explaining at the outset of this judgment about the definition of negligence. 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 . In order to succeed in claiming negligence, the claimants must show “on the balance of probabilities” …show more content…
As for Blasts Ltd, the evidence shows that they have broken the traffic rule by parking in non-parking area. It is not conclusive to claim liability or it might simplify the task of the judge. Their expected amount of care should also be considered, which should be proportionate to the degree of risk run and to the magnitude of the mischief that may be occasioned. The lorry in question loaded with fireworks which a reasonable and prudent person would foresee that it will cause explosion if due care is not taken. With reference to the Rule 274 , the Respondent should warn other traffics by hazard warning light and put a warning triangle on the road. Rule 284 and 285 suggested that dangerous goods, which are fireworks in the present case, should be marked with plain orange reflective plates. In addition, the lorry broke down at the day before the accident, Blasts Ltd should have plenty of time to ask for a trailer service to retrieve the lorry from the scene. Blasts Ltd did none of the above, they recklessly underestimated the foreseeability of harm and degree of risk (see Bolton v Stone , Paris v Stepney ) of their omission to …show more content…
With the second principle of Bolam, we should consider that whether the defendants’ act is regarded as proper by one responsible body of professional opinion. In Bolam, McNair J stated “mere personal belief that a particular technique is no defence unless that belief is based on reasonable grounds” . How to drive right in bad weather is not “progressive science”, the skills of the Respondents were based on experience and common practice. EBC Ltd and Blasts Ltd may have guidelines for their drivers about how to tackle such situation, or there are common practices amount the drivers. Can the common practice itself be negligence? Lord Browne-Wikinson’s in Bolitho made it clear that in rare case a judge would be entitled to reject the opinions of professional experts, if he or she felt that their opinions is not reasonable or responsible. Do the Respondents have reasonable grounds not to adopt the opinion of taking precautions? Taking the magnitude of the accident and the cost of precautions into account, their decision is unreasonable and irresponsible. They mere recklessly ignore the consequence of not doing