ABSTRACT
Whether Paula was in breach of that duty depends upon an assessment of the reasonableness of her conduct: in other words, would a reasonable person have behaved in the way that she did (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856))? Given the facts, it is unlikely that she has performed to the required standard and is therefore in breach of her duty. Next, the guests would have to demonstrate that her breach of duty caused their injuries. The basic approach is to utilise the ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)), essentially meaning: but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the damage have occurred? Once again, the linkage is simple and can easily be attributed to Paula’s negligence. Finally, it must be determined whether the damage suffered was too remote a consequence of the breach (The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961)) – in other words, was the damage of a type or kind that was reasonably foreseeable? In this case, all that would need to be shown would be that personal injury was reasonably foreseeable. Clearly it was. Paula is therefore very likely to be held to have been negligent.2
