Glasgow Corporation v Muir
The standard of care is that of the reasonable person, which is an objective standard, and a person is only liable for consequences that a reasonable person would foresee.
Facts
A group of children was waiting at a shop in a park run by Glasgow Corporation, to buy sweets. The manageress allowed a picnic party to carry a large urn of hot tea through the shop. One of the men carrying the urn slipped, and the tea scalded several children. The children sued the corporation, claiming that the manageress had been negligent in allowing the urn to be carried through the shop while children were there.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the corporation was not liable. Lord Macmillan said that the standard of foresight of the reasonable man is an impersonal test, which eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question. The manageress had no reason to anticipate that the men would slip, so there was no foreseeable risk of injury, and she had not been negligent.
Related cases on breach of duty
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
- Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
- Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
- Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333
- Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673, [2016] QB 639
- Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
