Negligence - Duty Of care
-
Which case established the neighbour test?
-
Caparo v Dickman [1990]
-
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
-
Bourhill v Young [1942]
-
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]
-
This is a quiz on the law of negligence, in particular the law relating to Duty of Care
- 2.
What is the three stage test from Caparo v Dickman [1990]?
-
Was the loss to the defendant foreseeable, was there insuffcicient proximity and is it equitable to impose a duty of care?
-
The persons are so directly affected, the defendant ought to reasonable have the claimant in contemplation and they are affected by the defendants acts or omissions?
-
Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable, was there sufficient proximity between the parties, is it fair, just and reasonable, on public policy grounds, to impose a duty of care?
Correct Answer
A. Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable, was there sufficient proximity between the parties, is it fair, just and reasonable, on public policy grounds, to impose a duty of care?Explanation
The three-stage test from Caparo v Dickman [1990] consists of three criteria that need to be met in order to establish a duty of care. These criteria are: 1) Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable? 2) Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? 3) Is it fair, just and reasonable, on public policy grounds, to impose a duty of care? These criteria help determine whether a duty of care exists in a particular situation by considering factors such as foreseeability of harm, the relationship between the parties, and the broader societal implications of imposing a duty of care.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Is the test for foreseeability objective or subjective?
-
Objective
-
Subjective
Correct Answer
A. ObjectiveExplanation
The test for foreseeability is objective because it is based on the reasonable person standard rather than the individual's personal beliefs or opinions. It focuses on what a reasonable person would have foreseen in a given situation, taking into account the circumstances and available information. This approach ensures a consistent and fair assessment of foreseeability, without being influenced by subjective factors.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
In Bourhill v Young [1942], the motorcyclist's personal representative was not liable because
-
The motorcyclist could not have foreseen that she would be harmed by his negligence
-
The case passed the foreseeability test but it failed on the proximity test
-
It wasn't fair, just and reasonable that liability in negligence should be imposed
Correct Answer
A. The motorcyclist could not have foreseen that she would be harmed by his negligenceExplanation
The correct answer suggests that the motorcyclist's personal representative was not liable because the motorcyclist could not have foreseen that she would be harmed by his negligence. This implies that in order for someone to be held liable for negligence, they must have reasonably foreseen that their actions could cause harm to another person. In this case, it was determined that the motorcyclist could not have reasonably foreseen the harm caused to the other party, therefore relieving the personal representative of liability.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
There is generally no liability in tort for injury or damage caused by omissions. True or false?
-
True
-
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
In tort law, liability is generally not imposed for injury or damage caused by omissions. This means that if someone fails to act or fulfill a duty, resulting in harm to another person, they may not be held legally responsible for the consequences. This is because tort law typically focuses on actions rather than inactions. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, such as when there is a special relationship between the parties involved or when there is a legal duty to act. Nonetheless, in the absence of such exceptions, the statement that there is generally no liability in tort for injury or damage caused by omissions is true.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Police immunity is not absolute. Which case established this principle?
-
Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [1999]
-
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]
-
Osman v United Kingdom [1999]
-
Orange v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2001]
Correct Answer
A. Osman v United Kingdom [1999]Explanation
Osman v United Kingdom [1999] is the correct answer because this case established the principle that police immunity is not absolute. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights held that the police can be held liable for failing to protect an individual from a known and immediate threat to their life, if it is found that the police had sufficient information to anticipate the threat and failed to take appropriate action to prevent it. This case set an important precedent in recognizing that there are limits to police immunity and that they can be held accountable for certain failures in their duty to protect individuals.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Unjustifiable and unnecessary interference means the rescuer will be taken to have accepted the risk so no duty will be owed to him from the defendant. True or False?
-
True
-
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The statement is true because if the interference by the rescuer is considered unjustifiable and unnecessary, it implies that the rescuer willingly accepted the risk involved. In such a case, the defendant cannot be held responsible for any duty towards the rescuer, as the rescuer voluntarily put themselves in harm's way. Therefore, in this scenario, no duty is owed to the rescuer by the defendant.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Rescuers who suffer psychiatric harm receieve favourable treatment in court. True or False?
-
True
-
False
Correct Answer
A. FalseExplanation
Rescuers who suffer psychiatric harm do not receive favorable treatment in court. While rescuers are often admired for their bravery and selflessness, the legal system does not necessarily provide them with special treatment when it comes to psychiatric harm. The courts generally apply the same standards of proof and causation to all individuals, regardless of their occupation or the circumstances in which they were harmed. Therefore, the statement that rescuers receive favorable treatment in court is false.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
Damages are recoverable for sorrow and grief. True or False?
-
True
-
False
Correct Answer
A. FalseExplanation
Damages are not recoverable for sorrow and grief. In legal terms, compensation is typically provided for tangible losses such as medical expenses, property damage, and loss of income. Sorrow and grief are considered non-economic damages, which are generally not awarded in legal cases unless specifically allowed by statute.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Which case established that close relationships of love and affection are necessary to a claim as a secondary victim?
-
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999]
-
Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995]
-
Page v Smith [1995]
-
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]
Correct Answer
A. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]Explanation
In the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992], it was established that close relationships of love and affection are necessary to a claim as a secondary victim. This means that in order to be considered a secondary victim and be eligible for compensation, the claimant must have had a close relationship with the primary victim, such as a family member or spouse. This case set a precedent for determining the criteria for secondary victim claims in cases of negligence or psychiatric harm.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 21, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 21, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Mar 28, 2009Quiz Created by
Tori1984
Back to top