1. There are 3 tests for looking at whether there was a breach that caused resulting damage... what are they?
- eggshell skull rule, chain of causation and the caparo test
- remoteness of damage, caparo test and the neighbour principle
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and remoteness of damage
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and chain of causation
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. 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
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council ... and ... Whitely v Chappell
- The Wagon Mound ... and ... Crossley v Rowlinson
- Roe v Minister of Health ... and ... Smith v Leech Brain and Co
3. 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.
4. There was NO duty of care owed in Bourhill v Young because...?
- The motor cyclist did not cause the crash
- the woman was responsible for the crash so nobody else owes her a duty of care
- Harm wasn't foreseeable as she was 50 yards away from the accident
- the type of injury (loss of her baby) was an unforeseeable
5. '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