The standard of“the man on the Clapham omnibus”is not applied in all cases， since this might lead to unfairness. There are defendants for whom this standard is much too low and would exonerate an obvious wrongdoing. In other cases， the standard may be seen as too demanding of the defendant in the circumstances. The most common examples are the cases of specialist defendants， inexperienced defendants and child defendants.
Skilled defendants （ specialists）
The test of an ordinary average person would not be appropriate for defendants that profess or hold themselves out as professing a certain skill. The“man on the Clapham omnibus”does not have that skill and the conductexpected from a skilled professional is not the same as could be expected of an ordinary man in the same circumstances. The general standard applied to professionals is therefore that of a“reasonable professional”， e.g. car mechanic， doctor etc.
Novices
Novices in a certain area of skill must show the same standard of care as a reasonable person with that particular skill. No allowance is given for the defendant s lack of experience.
It is important to note that the claimant s knowledge of the defendant s lack of experience in the skill he is exercising does not result in the standard being lowered. In Nettleship vs. Weston， a driving instructor was injured due to a mistake of his student. The student argued that the instructor was aware of her lack of experience， but the Court of Appeal refused to accommodate this fact in their decision on the standard of care expected from her. At the same time， the teacher s award of damages was reduced due to his contributory negligence.
Children
While no allowance is made for novices， the courts are prepared to lower the standard of care expected of children， on account of their age. A child defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable child of the same age.
Breach of duty
Once a duty of care has been established， it must be shown that a duty has been breached. The question the courts ask is whether the behaviour exhibited by the defendant fell below the threshold of a“reasonable man”（ the objective test） . In some cases where the defendant was in a special profession， e.g. being a doctor， the court will ask what standard of care a“reasonable doctor”or the like might have done. Allowance is usually made for the defendant s age and a lower standard of a“reasonable child of a certain age”is applied to children. On the other hand， no allowance is made for other personal circumstances， such as the fact that the defendant was inexperienced in the task he set out to perform. He is expected to perform this task as a reasonably skilled and competent person.
nebulous / nebjul s/adj. 朦胧的；星云的，星云状的
claimant / kleim nt/n.原告；提出要求者；索赔人
opaque / u peik/adj.不透明的；不传热的；迟钝的
biblical / biblik l/adj.圣经的；依据圣经的
groundwork / gr undw k/n.基础；地基，根基
foreseeability / f sibiliti /n.可预见性
proximity /pr k simiti/n.亲近，接近；直接
sneakily / sni kili/adv.鬼鬼祟祟地，偷偷摸摸地
accountant / kaunt nt/n.会计师；会计人员
shoddy /di/n.赝品；冒牌货；假装粗俗
adj.劣质的；假冒的；卑劣的
discretionary /dis kre n ri/adj.任意的；自由裁量的
prudent / pru d nt/adj.谨慎的；节俭的；精明的
exonerate /ig z n reit/vt.使免罪，免除责任，确定无罪
demanding /di m ndi /adj.要求高的；苛求的；吃力的
novice / n vis/n.初学者，新手
allowance / lau ns/n.折让；允许；限额
ci vi lwrong 民事不法行为
buy up尽量收购；全买
Court of Appeal上诉法院
on account of由于；因为；为了的缘故