Assess the standard of care and breach
Judge reasonable precautions using the risk known at the time and the appropriate defendant standard.
Section Paper 4 · Law of tort
Exam scope and assessment notes
A Level · section 4.1.3. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Apply an objective care standard and risk factors
- Compare children, skilled defendants and professional decisions
Assess precautions before the outcome
The objective reasonable-person standard does not ordinarily fall because a defendant is inexperienced. Probability and seriousness of harm, cost and practicability of precautions and the activity's social utility can matter. Bolton, Paris, Latimer and Watt illustrate different factors; none says a small probability always excuses ignoring severe harm.
Use what reasonably should have been considered at the time, not the bare fact that an accident occurred. Res ipsa loquitur can support an inference in appropriate circumstances involving the event and control, but is not a rule that every accident proves breach. Explain a realistic precaution and its effect.
Select the relevant class
Children are ordinarily assessed against an appropriate child standard, illustrated by Mullin, rather than automatically the fully experienced adult. Skilled activities require the reasonably competent relevant practitioner, not guaranteed perfection. Bolam's responsible professional practice is qualified by Bolitho's requirement that the opinion withstand logical analysis.
Medical advice about material risks and reasonable alternatives has the patient-centred Montgomery approach; do not reduce informed discussion to what professionals customarily disclose. McCulloch distinguishes identifying reasonable treatment alternatives through the appropriate professional-practice analysis from advising about their material risks. This medical example illustrates standard selection, not a treatment recommendation.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does low probability automatically excuse every serious preventable risk?
Worked example
A workshop knows a worker has an unusually high risk of serious eye injury. Eye protection is inexpensive. Is low accident probability alone decisive?
Show the worked solution
- Consider both probability and severity.
- Use the known vulnerability.
- Evaluate practical inexpensive protection.
Answer Low probability alone does not settle reasonable care. Known severity and vulnerability, together with inexpensive practical protection, support a stronger precaution argument; breach still depends on the full circumstances.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Identify three care factors in the eye-protection example.
Give me a hint
Use known risk, consequence and precaution.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify known vulnerability.
- Identify severe possible injury.
- Identify inexpensive protection.
The known vulnerability and severity of harm must be weighed alongside the practicable low-cost protection. A numerical probability alone cannot decide the reasonable-precaution question.
Look for these in your work
- Uses vulnerability
- Uses severity
- Uses practicability
Independent: A newly qualified skilled practitioner says personal inexperience lowers the professional standard. Evaluate.
Give me a hint
Select the competent practitioner standard.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify the skilled activity.
- Use reasonable competence in that field.
- Assess conduct and justified professional opinion.
Personal inexperience does not automatically lower the relevant reasonably competent practitioner standard. The actual conduct and any logically defensible professional practice need assessment, rather than an excuse based only on new qualification.
Look for these in your work
- Selects standard
- Rejects automatic excuse
- Uses conduct
Application: A recognised professional practice is offered as conclusive proof of reasonable care. What qualification matters?
Give me a hint
Acceptance by some practitioners is not the whole inquiry.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify responsible professional support.
- Examine logical analysis of risks and benefits.
- Distinguish any patient-advice duty.
Professional support must be responsible and capable of withstanding the relevant logical analysis. For medical risk advice the patient-centred duty also needs separate attention; custom alone is not an unqualified answer to every care question.
Look for these in your work
- Uses responsible support
- Uses logical analysis
- Separates advice duty
Common mistakes
- Using the outcome as the standard
- Giving beginners a universal lower standard
- Treating professional practice as unchallengeable
What can you explain now?
Does low probability automatically excuse every serious preventable risk?
Compare with the explanation
No
Severity and reasonable precautions also matter to the breach analysis.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Does low probability automatically excuse every serious preventable risk?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.