The facts of this scenario raise the question as to whether Gayatry and Andy may have

any claims in the tort of negligence. In order for a claim in negligence to be successful, the
claimant must establish the following four elements: a form of actionable damage, a duty of care
owed to the claimant by the defendant, a breach of that duty caused by the defendant, and finally
causation of harm or damage by the defendant’s actions.

To discuss Gayatry’s claim against Andy, we must first evaluate whether she has suffered
actionable damage. According to the principle established in Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating
Co,1 it was said ‘damage…is an abstract concept of being worse off, physically or economically,
so that compensation is an appropriate remedy.’2 When applying this, since Gayatry’s wooden
floor and lounge were damaged she is thus economically worse off because she will have to pay
money for the repair of the floor to get it fixed and loses money. Moreover, it can be concluded
that actionable damage exists.

Next, we must determine whether Andy owed Gayatry a duty to not cause her the damage
she complained of. Since Andy is said to be an apprentice plumber, the case of Wells v Cooper3
can be used as precedent, in which it was held that contracted workers, owe a duty of care to the
property owner. Thus, it can be established Andy owed a duty of care to Gayatry.

Now it must be proved that the defendant’s behaviour fell below the legal standard of
care in the situation in order for a breach of duty to be evident. This standard is defined by the

1
[2007] UKHL 39
2
ibid [7].
3
2 All ER 527
ISSUED BY
YOUR COMPANY NAME

REPRESENTATIVE
YOUR NAME
YOUR EMAIL
YOUR PHONE
law, as a test of ‘reasonableness’. This said principle was set out in Blyth v Birmingham
Waterworks Co4, in which it was held an objective test was to be applied to see how the
‘reasonable man' would behave in this circumstance when assessing the actions of the defendant.
But, Andy will not be held to this basic standard, instead, he is further subjected to a professional
standard of care. The precedent for this was recognised in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Committee5, in which it was concluded that where the defendant possesses special skills in a
particular area or field, their conduct will be upheld to the standard of the reasonable person in
that profession.

If the court's view Andy as a professional contracted plumber, his lack of training in the
profession will not be taken into consideration when establishing how he should have acted. This
is neatly highlighted in Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority6, which emphasised that an
individual is not evaluated on the basis of their title but that a defendant in a professional
standard is to be upheld to the same actions of others in that profession who normally carry out
the task that the defendant performing. In other words, Andy is going to be compared to the
standard of Drew and how he would have ordinarily acted, presuming that it is a task Drew
would regularly do as a plumber. When applying this to our scenario it can be said Andy did
breach his duty of care since he has witnessed Drew execute a similar kind of task before which
means it was a job that was normally done under the profession, and that his lack of experience
will not stop him from breaching the duty of care owed to Gayatry.

On the contrary, if the court’s view Andy as an amateur plumber who is performing a
professional task, then the precedent established in Wells v Cooper7 would apply. In this case, it
was said an amateur performing a professional task will not be held to a professional standard,
instead to the standard of an amateur, but they must know their limits to meet a level of standard
of care, so it is unreasonable to take on more complex tasks. When applying this to our scenario,
Andy is not to be held to the same standard of a reasonably competent and skilled plumber like
Drew, instead to a reasonably competent amateur. However, it was not reasonable for Andy to
take on such a major task after only having one month of training. Additionally, he only
witnessed Drew fixing a broken radiator and only thought he could remember how to fix it, he
wasn’t positively sure. He should have known his limits and realised he would be putting another

4
[1856] 11 Ex Ch 781
5
[1943] 2 A.C. 448 457 [457] (Lord Macmillan)
6
[1988] AC 1074
7
[1958] 2 All ER 527
1
person's property at risk if he made a mistake. Thus, after evaluating the facts, Andy has fallen
below the legal standard of care which means there was a breach of duty.

Lastly, the element of causation must be proved. When testing this, the ‘But for’ test
created in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital8 is to be used. This requires asking if it had
not been for the defendant's breach of duty, would the damage to the claimant have arisen? Since
the water wouldn’t have flooded the house ruining the lounge and wooden floor if Andy hadn’t
acted negligently, it can be said the damage was a direct cause of his behaviour.

To conclude, since all four elements of negligence have been satisfied, Gayatry will have
a strong claim against Andy which means he will be required to compensate her for damages
caused to her property as a result of his actions.

Now, looking at Andy’s situation against Dr. Salt, the same four elements of negligence
have to be present in order to have a successful claim. Rothwell9 will still apply in determining
actionable damage. Andy is worse off physically and economically because of the doctor’s
behaviour, his arm is now permanently deformed and he is unable to work which is a loss in
future earnings.

Moving on, a duty of care also needs to be shown. In Bolam10, it is clearly evident that
doctors owe a duty of care to patients beneath the law’s eyes.

Having established a duty of care exists, we need to determine whether Dr. Salt breached
said duty. Since he is a doctor he will be further subjected to a professional standard of care as
established in Bolam.11 Additionally, in the judgment of the case, a new test arose called the
Bolam test12, which states that where there are conflicting bodies of opinion in the medical field
and doctors thinking differently, a doctor will not be held liable as long as there is a responsible
body of opinion backing one’s actions. When applying this to our situation, Dr. Salt who was
treating Andy didn’t use an x-ray to examine his arm because he and a minority of doctors
strongly believed the radiation from using them was dangerous and so they should be avoided
when possible. But, the majority body of opinion of doctors within the profession believed it was

8
[1969] 1 QB 428
9
Rothwell (n1)
10
Bolam (n7)
11
ibid.
12
ibid.
2
usual practice to x-ray an injured arm if a patient had fallen. So, even though Dr. Salt was only in
the miniory of doctors who would have also not used an x-ray on Andy’s arm, the fact is that his
actions were backed up by a responsible body of opinion within the same medical field who
believed in the harms of x-rays. As a result, there is no breach of duty. present.

However, Dr. Salt could be in breach of duty due to the principle established in Bolitho v
City and Hackney Health Authority,13 in which it was held that this responsible body of opinion
also needs reasonable, respectable and that there needs to be a logical basis for the decision.
Thus, applying this to our scenario, there was no logical basis for Dr. Salt’s opinion. This is
because the benefits of performing the x-ray clearly outweigh the risks. Having performed an
x-ray is what would have prevented Andy’s arm from permanently deformed because they are
quick and painless procedures that give answers regarding medical questions. In contrast, when
Andy was re-examined by another doctor who used an x-ray he found out right away that the
arm had been broken in the fall. However, using an x-ray is not a risk-free process since the
radiation can be dangerous to patients and lead to further complications. Given the benefits
compared with the risks, it was illogical for Dr. Salt to not have performed the x-ray because the
advantage of making the correct diagnosis exceeds the risks. Therefore, Dr. Salt is in breach of
duty as his conclusion is not a defensible one.

Now, causation must be proven. Applying Barnett14 again and the ‘But for’ test, Dr.
Salt’s actions are the direct cause of Andy’s arm being permanently deformed because if he had
just first examined him with an x-ray and set in a plaster cast, then his injury would easily have
been prevented.

In conclusion, since all four elements of negligence have been satisfied, Andy will have a
successful claim against Dr. Salt and he will be held liable for his actions.

13
[1997] 3 WLR 1151
14
Barnett (n11)
3