AQA law - Proving Negligence

HideShow resource information

1. If the defendant has BREACHED their duty of care, they have...?

  • caused a personal injury to the claimant
  • caused harm that was unforeseeable
  • done something wrong or failed to do something
  • done something wrong and shown no remorse for their actions
1 of 10

Other questions in this quiz

2. There are 3 tests for looking at whether there was a breach that caused resulting damage... what are they?

  • remoteness of damage, caparo test and the neighbour principle
  • but-for test, eggshell skull rule and chain of causation
  • but-for test, eggshell skull rule and remoteness of damage
  • eggshell skull rule, chain of causation and the caparo test

3. 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 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
  • The motor cyclist did not cause the crash

4. 'The defendant must take the claimant as he finds him' ... which rule / test does this definition best apply to?

  • the JAC test
  • eggshell skull rule
  • neighbour principle
  • but for test

5. The second part of the caparo test asks...?

  • Was there resulting damage?
  • Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
  • Is there sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant?
  • Is the claimant themselves at fault?

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »