1. In Bradford v Robinson Rentals, the claimant suffered frostbite due to a broken car heater... could this be claimed for?
- Yes... even though frost bite was unforeseeable, it WAS foreseeable that personal injury could occur due to a broken heater
- No... the type of damage (personal injury) may have been foreseeable, but the specific injury of frost bite wasn't foreseeable so he therefore couldn't claim for it.
- No... The claimant owned the car heater and broke it himself by mistake so it was the claimant's own actions resulting in damage - he therefore couldn't claim for it.
- Yes... Everyone who had driven or been a passenger in that car had suffered frost bite so the damage was therefore foreseeable.
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. The first duty of care was established in...?
- Pepper v Hart
- Caparo v Hart
- Donaghue v Stevenson
- Caparo v Dickman
3. Which two cases demonstrate that: types of damages that are not foreseeable, cannot be claimed for as they are too remote?
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council ... and ... Whitely v Chappell
- Roe v Minister of Health ... and ... Smith v Leech Brain and Co
- The Wagon Mound ... and ... Crossley v Rowlinson
- Smith v Leech Brain and Co... and ... Bolton v Stone
4. In Roe v Minister of Health, was the doctor in breach of his duty of care?
- Yes... because he is a doctor and has an obligated duty to care for his patients by providing them with sterile medication, which he failed to do.
- No... because he had no way of knowing about the invisible cracks in the anaesthetic bottles, so harm from the contaminated medicine was not foreseeable.
- No... because he had warned the patients that the medicine might be contaminated and they agreed to take it at their own risk.
- Yes... because he was the one who caused the bottles to crack due to handling them in a rough manner when putting them onto the shelves.
5. There was NO duty of care owed in Bourhill v Young because...?
- Harm wasn't foreseeable as she was 50 yards away from the accident
- the type of injury (loss of her baby) was an unforeseeable
- The motor cyclist did not cause the crash
- the woman was responsible for the crash so nobody else owes her a duty of care