Skip to content
1. Which two cases demonstrate that: types of damages that are not foreseeable, cannot be claimed for as they are too remote?
- The Wagon Mound ... and ... Crossley v Rowlinson
- Roe v Minister of Health ... and ... Smith v Leech Brain and Co
- Smith v Leech Brain and Co... and ... Bolton v Stone
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council ... and ... Whitely v Chappell
1 of 10
Other questions in this quiz
2. 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.
- 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.
- 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.
3. There was NO duty of care owed in Bourhill v Young because...?
- the woman was responsible for the crash so nobody else owes her a duty of care
- the type of injury (loss of her baby) was an unforeseeable
- Harm wasn't foreseeable as she was 50 yards away from the accident
- The motor cyclist did not cause the crash
4. 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?
5. 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
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and remoteness of damage
- but-for test, eggshell skull rule and chain of causation
- remoteness of damage, caparo test and the neighbour principle
Comments
No comments have yet been made