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 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.
- 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.
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. The first duty of care was established in...?
- Caparo v Hart
- Donaghue v Stevenson
- Pepper v Hart
- Caparo v Dickman
3. If the defendant has BREACHED their duty of care, they have...?
- caused harm that was unforeseeable
- done something wrong or failed to do something
- caused a personal injury to the claimant
- done something wrong and shown no remorse for their actions
4. 'The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him' ... which rule / test does this definition best apply to?
- eggshell skull rule
- the JAC test
- but for test
- neighbour principle
5. The second part of the caparo test asks...?
- Was there resulting damage?
- Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant?
- Is the claimant themselves at fault?
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?