Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263
Judgement for the case Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd
Table Of Contents
Defendant didn’t realise he had hypoglycaemia and didn’t realise that his ability had been severely impaired.
He crashed into Plaintiff’s shop who sued him for negligence.
-
HL said that the standard of the duty of care was that of a “reasonably competent driver unaware that he was or might be suffering from a condition that impaired his ability to drive.”
If no “awareness” was considered it would be a strict liability test.
In this case he could not reasonably have been aware of his condition.
For Further Study on Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Tort Law | Negligence Duty Of Care Notes (35 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.