1. In Bolton v Stone, the cricket club weren't in breach of duty because...?
- The likelihood of the cricket ball leaving the ground was high but the social benefit of the sport outweighs this.
- The cricket ball caused a serious injury to the person it hit but they didn't sue as they were a massive fan of the game.
- There is a social benefit to playing cricket and the likelihood of the ball leaving the grounds and hitting someone was very low.
- There is a social benefit to playing cricket, and the ball hit a fellow cricket player who understood that playing the sport could lead to injury.
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. 'The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him' ... which rule / test does this definition best apply to?
- the JAC test
- but for test
- eggshell skull rule
- neighbour principle
3. In Roe v Minister of Health, was the doctor in breach of his duty of care?
- 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.
- No... because he had warned the patients that the medicine might be contaminated and they agreed to take it at their own risk.
- 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.
- 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.
4. The second part of the caparo test asks...?
- Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant?
- Was there resulting damage?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
- Is the claimant themselves at fault?
5. Which two cases demonstrate that: types of damages that are not foreseeable, cannot be claimed for as they are too remote?
- Smith v Leech Brain and Co... and ... Bolton v Stone
- The Wagon Mound ... and ... Crossley v Rowlinson
- Roe v Minister of Health ... and ... Smith v Leech Brain and Co
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council ... and ... Whitely v Chappell